It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If you want to seccede then take your bad attitude with you. We will be glad that you left!
Originally posted by Grimpachi
The right wing idea of safety nets.
Thanks but no thanks we will stick with our leftwing (sane) ideas.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If you want to seccede then take your bad attitude with you. We will be glad that you left!
Nope...I'm going to stay right here and continue the good fight. Being an American.
I'll do it, if anything, just to annoy.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Lol the SPUSA? Sure, why not just set the Constitution on fire while you're at it.
the SPUSA is filled with nothing more than a bunch of parasitic hippie losers.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What part of the constitution authorises something like five wars the past 15 years so that america can go bankrupt? I am awaiting with baited breath!
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What good fight? All I see from republicans is LUNACY! If you were patriotic you would have seen the light by now. Everytime your party loses you people cry about seccession and threaten job losses.
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What part of the constitution authorises something like five wars the past 15 years so that america can go bankrupt? I am awaiting with baited breath!
Very typical of people who think like you do. You avoided answering my question because you know that there is in fact no Constitutional authorization for a social safety net.
I never stated any of the recent wars passed Constitutional muster, which is why I am against them.
Your laughable avoidance at answering a simple question speaks volumes about your "beliefs"
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means
Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Why dont you move to one of those countries since you support safety nets and ignore the idea of personal responsibility?
Again, a simple question:
What part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to spend public monies on a "social safety net"?
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means
edit on 13-11-2012 by TheAngryFarm because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Personal responsibility needs social responsibility to make soceity function properly.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am not a constitutional lawyer so it is not my job to know the details of the constitution.
Personal responsibility needs social responsibility to make soceity function properly.
And if it is not in the constitution it can always be added later on. Hiding evil intentions behind the constitution speaks volumes of the flawed character of people like you. The document was written centuries ago and can always benefit from amendments because things change.
Originally posted by rockintitz
Wow, well first off let me just say how far the censorship of speech in the US has gone. As I am writing this 563 people have signed this.
Is this what we have become? A nation that punishes and demeans other people's points of view?! A nation of "you don't like it, you can get out" minded fellows?
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by rockintitz
Wow, well first off let me just say how far the censorship of speech in the US has gone. As I am writing this 563 people have signed this.
Is this what we have become? A nation that punishes and demeans other people's points of view?! A nation of "you don't like it, you can get out" minded fellows?
Hmmmm OK..First Whitehouse.gov is an open forum for petitions, not issued by the Whitehouse, in case there was any confusion.
Second.."A nation that punishes and demeans other people's points of view?! A nation of "you don't like it, you can get out" minded fellows?"
Isn't this precisely what those who are demanding to secede are saying?
When petitions demanding to throw out the states that didn't vote GOP are issued it is "free speech"?
When petitions saying...OK...are filed..it's "supressing free speech?"
Confused.edit on 13-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by TDawgRex
Yes I am from Texas,
Austin voted for Obama, does that mean that if Texas does secede does Austin get to secede from Texas?