News:

FORUM HAS BEEN UPGRADED  - if you have trouble logging in, please tap/click "home"  and try again. Hopefully this upgrade addresses recent server issues.  Thank you for your patience. Forum Manager

MESSAGE ABOUT WEBSITE REGISTRATIONS
http://mahoningvalley.info/forum/index.php?topic=8677

Main Menu

Candidate for 17th Congressional District......Dan Moadus

Started by Dan Moadus, July 11, 2009, 05:03:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

irishbobcat

Fact is Flag Burning is NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. CASE CLOSED.

sfc_oliver

No Dennis, I posted the truth, you posted something made up by a Hollywood writer.

Some names you may recognize who have sponsored Flag protection Amendments:  Feinstein, Hatch, and Murtha.

And so you understand that the majority is for the amendment:

   In the 104th Congress, the House, by a vote of 312 to 120 passed H.J.Res. 79
In the 105th Congress, the House, by a vote of 310 to 114 passed H.J.Res. 54, 143
In the 106th Congress, the House, by a vote of 305 to
124 passed H.J.Res. 33, 145
In the 107th Congress, the House, by a vote of 298 to 125 passed H.J.Res. 36, 147
In the 108th Congress, The House, by a vote of 300 to 125 passed H.J.Res. 4, 149

Facts Dennis, it is how you actually win an argument.
<<<)) Sergeant First Class,  US Army, Retired((>>>

irishbobcat

But it is the truth, Sarge...and that is what is so funny....HAHAHAHAHA.....

So take your flag burning Amerndment and stick it........

sfc_oliver

Now that is really funny  a Utube link to a Hollywood movie. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is that the best you can do?

The 106th Congress narrowly failed to send a
constitutional amendment to allow punishment of flag desecration to the states. In the 107th and
108th Congresses, such proposals were passed by the House.

I believe you will find that it is again in congress and this time it may just make it. So we may yet change the constitution which the Courts can not then say is unconstitutional.

But until that time, I will defend your right to burn the symbol of our freedoms Dennis.

You see I am not against freedom of speech, I am against the current definition of it. And a great American organization (the American Legion) fights to change our constitution to protect this symbol of our freedoms. But you just can't accept that. It will happen.

And please no more from Hollywood as a reference.
<<<)) Sergeant First Class,  US Army, Retired((>>>

irishbobcat

#50
yes sarge, you are..........go sell raffle tickets......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44R5BapEdYY


sfc_oliver

Where does segregation come from? Why must the left make everything about race and hating?

Yet If I back the Flag Protection amendment i am against free speech.
<<<)) Sergeant First Class,  US Army, Retired((>>>

irishbobcat

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Dan, so, if Rick and Sarge, and a "majority" of your voters calls you up and believes in a return to segregation, you would support a constitutional admendment for this?


Dan Moadus

I am sorry if my remarks were not clear enough. I think our Representatives should be bound by our Constitution, and should not cast votes that contradict it, even if his or her constituents want otherwise. I pledge to never cast a vote contrary to our Constitution. If it seems to be an unpopular vote, I will still cast it, and defend it as best I can, even if it means losing an election.

Rick Rowlands

I never said the US was a democracy. What I said is that the votes of our representatives should reflect the desires and sentiments of their constituents.  But by the both of your admissions you feel that it is just fine if our representative does whatever he pleases regardless of what the constituents think?  I can understand Dennis on this but I suppose Dan is covering his tail so that he doesn't say anything that we could hold him to should he be elected.

Dennis please cite line and verse that gives constitutional authority for what Dan has mentioned.  The only provision that I see is the 10th amendment which states that all powers not explicitly spelled out in the constitution are reserved to the states and the people.  So the State of Ohio would be well within their rights to enact hate crimes legislation and sell energy credits, but the Federal Govt. does not have that power. 

BTW if your next reply does not include citations of the constitution I will conclude that there are none and that you are again talking through your hat.

Dan Moadus

Not so touchy Dennis. Where in the Constitution does it say our government can sell energy credits to private industry? And where does it say our government can own private businesses? Where does it say, in the Constitution that government can send you to jail for "speech", as can happen with the Matthew Sheppard hate crimes legislation? Dennis where does the Constitution say that an individual FBI agent can write a search warrant if he feels like searching your home, and you could be jailed if you tell anyone about it. Not even your wife, or your attorney?

irishbobcat

Dan, but IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION>>>>>>>>>>SO STICK IT!

Dan Moadus

Quote from: irishbobcat on July 17, 2009, 12:22:39 PM
so if everybody in your district thinks segregation is good, you should be a
supporting segregation in America?

Rick, if your not on drugs, you ought to be.

Oh, when is your white bigot festival taking place?

Dennis is right here. He is making the point that we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Our representatives are supposed to base their votes on principles expressed in our Constitution and not the public sentiment. However, his big issues, like single payer health care, and cap and trade, could not be supported in a Republic based on our Constitution, and I defy him to show otherwise.

More than likely he will point to the article that says the government should provide for the general welfare. Its the liberals favorite phrase.

sfc_oliver

First off not one person in here brought up race or segregation of any type, Except of course the far left you know who......

Now I had a cataract evaluation today and was informed that I need surgery on both eyes. But because I have no other underlying eye problems I could have a newer type lenses that would not only correct the cataracts but would correct my vision 100%.

Only one problem, My socialized medicine (as Dennis likes to remind us) will not pay for the newer lenses. I will have to take the older ones and still need reading glasses. Or pay up to $1800 per eye.

Isn't That government controlled health care wonderful? (NOT)
<<<)) Sergeant First Class,  US Army, Retired((>>>

irishbobcat

so if everybody in your district thinks segregation is good, you should be a
supporting segregation in America?

Rick, if your not on drugs, you ought to be.

Oh, when is your white bigot festival taking place?

Rick Rowlands

A good question to ask Tim Ryan is to explain what the definition of "representative" is.  I sincerely think he does not have a clue.  A representative stands up for the desires of those who are being represented. A representative is not a leader, he does not make policy and then tries to conform the represented to follow his ideas and plans.  Ryan thinks his constituents are uninformed, uneducated masses who need to be led by him, sicne he obviously knows better what you need than you know yourself. 

If Tim Ryan wants to be a leader than he should run for an office in a leadership role.  The executive branch is where the leaders are, the legislative branch is for people who "represent" the will of the citizens.