ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The President Obama appreciation thread

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Oct. 28 2012, 5:13 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 1:54 pm

>The Founding Fathers wanted universal education. They recognized education as essential for the prosperity of a nation, especially a new one like the United States, both economically and to sustain a self-governing government (republic). And they hated corporations. Now, big banks would certainly qualify as corporations, but they were against any form of corporation, which is why they imposed massive restrictions on them
The founding fathers didn't impose massive restrictions on corporations.  In fact their wasn't a lot of restrictions until the early 1900s.  In fact the founding fathers were very interested in protecting American buisness from over seas companies by having the federal government finance exclusivly by trade tariffs up until the civil war.


chad.presley

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm

Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President    We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm

Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President    We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he

>
Nice dream.  I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government.  I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.


Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm

chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal.

Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time.

 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 201

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 6:24 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm

>chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal. Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time.


I'm fairly certain they couldn't donate to political parties...


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 7:00 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm

>chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal. Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time.
 That is in fact very minor restrictions.  And in fact non of these restictions prevented any of the things you say they wanted to prevent.  It didn't prevent the large trust from forming.


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm

Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>

>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President    We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he

>
Nice dream.  I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government.  I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.


What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 2:39 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm

Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>

>

>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President    We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he

>
Nice dream.  I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government.  I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.

What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?

His anti-Biblical views - he believes in abortion and redefining marriage.  He tries to frame it as getting the government out of our personal choices, but the USA was built on Biblical principles.  I'm definitely not saying that this should be a theocracy, but that doesn't mean we "transform" America and throw out our founding principles.


As George Washington so correctly said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 2:40 pm

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Oct. 29 2012, 5:17 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 29 2012, 2:39 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm

Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm

>

>

>

>

>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President    We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he

>
Nice dream.  I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government.  I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.

What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?

His anti-Biblical views - he believes in abortion and redefining marriage.  He tries to frame it as getting the government out of our personal choices, but the USA was built on Biblical principles.  I'm definitely not saying that this should be a theocracy, but that doesn't mean we "transform" America and throw out our founding principles.

As George Washington so correctly said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”


"If the Founding Fathers had wanted a national government controlling eduction, they would have listed it as an enumerated power.


Religion was also extremely important to our Founding Fathers (just read their writings,) but they didn't want to control it via the Federal government."


You should put yourself on your ignore list.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 30 2012, 8:33 am

Anyone remember when Obama ignored the law and forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat?  Now we find out that Fiat is looking to move manufacturing some of the lines (including Jeep) over to Europe instead of keeping it in the USA.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-28/marchionne-seen-missing-fiat-sales-target-by-19-billion#p1


 


Let's see..... billions of taxdollars lost on the bailouts.... cash for clunkers that didn't do anything..... the CEO of GM bragging about almost 70% of all GM vehicles being made outside of the USA (and still getting a bailout).... 


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 30 2012, 10:39 am

So which one of Obama's fiascos and coverups is the worst?  Solyndra?  Benghazi?  Fast & Furious?  Inflation?  Energy?


 


Obviously, I could go on an on and on.... What do you think?  (Feel free to add your own list.)


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Oct. 30 2012, 12:26 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 30 2012, 8:33 am

>

>Anyone remember when Obama ignored the law and forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat?  Now we find out that Fiat is looking to move manufacturing some of the lines (including Jeep) over to Europe instead of keeping it in the USA.

>http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-28/marchionne-seen-missing-fiat-sales-target-by-19-billion#p1

>Let's see..... billions of taxdollars lost on the bailouts.... cash for clunkers that didn't do anything..... the CEO of GM bragging about almost 70% of all GM vehicles being made outside of the USA (and still getting a bailout).... 

>


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-obama-chrysler-sold-italians-china-ame/

"The ad miscasts the government’s role in Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler’s owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire!"

As for Fiat wanting to manufacture some models in Italy, the article you posted doesn't say whether or not it would come at the expense of American jobs. Either way, that's capitalism. "Job creators" like Marchionne should be free to run his business the way he wants, right? If it will make him more money to build cars in Italy then why should he build them in the US? The same goes for the CEO of GM.


Also, both GM and Chrysler have paid back the money they borrowed.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 30 2012, 1:06 pm

So which Obama should we believe?  The one that says that the free market "doesn't work! It has never worked!" (as he did during a speech on 11 December 2011) or that "I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known." as he did during the 16 Oct debate?


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Oct. 30 2012, 1:37 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Oct. 30 2012, 12:26 pm

>The same goes for the CEO of GM.
You mean the one that Obama illegally fired or the one that Obama illegally appointed?


Post Reply

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum