Barney Frank Replacement

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 4:17 AM GMT
    Barney Frank announced his retirement this week. Guess who might take his place on the House Finance Committee?

    Its racist pig socialist wackjob Maxine Waters. Check her out in this video. This is a scary thought.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 4:41 AM GMT
    That is the dumbest video that has ever graced RJ's forums.

    Oil executives are threatening the American people and Waters rightly responds by reminding them that their companies can be nationalized and - without the billions they reap in profits - gasoline costs would come down.

    You realize that Congresspeople are supposed to represent the people not oil companies, right? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:28 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThat is the dumbest video that has ever graced RJ's forums.


    Well, I do think it's the first video of Maxine ever to be posted here, so yes, you are correct.




    Christian73 saidOil executives are threatening the American people and Waters rightly responds by reminding them that their companies can be nationalized and - without the billions they reap in profits - gasoline costs would come down.


    "Oil executives are threatening the American people..." icon_lol.gif

    And what's this "their companies can be nationalized" stuff? Christian, this is not Venezuela. Companies can't be nationalized - at least not yet, though perhaps that is on Mr. Obama's list of things to "fundamentally transform" in America.




    Watch the video. The exec says if you don't let us drill where we want, we will raise prices and hurt the American people. It's an implicit threat.

    Any company or industry can be nationalized. In fact, nationalizing the banks was discussed by both the Bush and Obama administrations. All it would require is passing legislation to make it so. And if the oil companies are seen as a strategic threat to America's well-being, then hasta la vista.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:35 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidOh, a lunatic Congress with a lunatic President could pass any kind of legislation and get it signed into law. But to do something like you are hoping for would be as gross a violation of the Constitution as the health insurance mandate is in Obamacare.


    Nothing in the Constitution says anything about nationalizing companies or industries pro or con. Try again. icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2011 5:49 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidOh, a lunatic Congress with a lunatic President could pass any kind of legislation and get it signed into law. But to do something like you are hoping for would be as gross a violation of the Constitution as the health insurance mandate is in Obamacare.


    Nothing in the Constitution says anything about nationalizing companies or industries pro or con. Try again. icon_redface.gif



    Correct. Now, hope you are sitting down for this... If it is not specified in the Constitution, then the Federal government can NOT do it, as the Constitution enumerates the specific powers of the Federal government. So if the Constitution doesn't say that the Federal government can nationalize a company, then the Federal government can not nationalize a company.


    Incorrect. If a company or industry was seen as a threat to the stability of the US, the federal government could seize or nationalize it to prevent harm coming to the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 12:15 AM GMT
    This woman admitted to socialism in this video. That is not how we do things in America. I trust the oil companies way before I would trust the federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 12:42 AM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThis woman admitted to socialism in this video. That is not how we do things in America. I trust the oil companies way before I would trust the federal government.
    .

    Which only proves how desperately dumb you are. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 1:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThis woman admitted to socialism in this video. That is not how we do things in America. I trust the oil companies way before I would trust the federal government.
    .

    Which only proves how desperately dumb you are. icon_lol.gif


    And you have proved why I cannot stand to be around liberals. They think their better than everyone else. They resort to name calling and insults. I thank God that I was never raised with the liberal mentality. Its almost like a sickness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    CHRISTOPHER34 said
    Christian73 said
    CHRISTOPHER34 saidThis woman admitted to socialism in this video. That is not how we do things in America. I trust the oil companies way before I would trust the federal government.
    .

    Which only proves how desperately dumb you are. icon_lol.gif


    And you have proved why I cannot stand to be around liberals. They think their better than everyone else. They resort to name calling and insults. I thank God that I was never raised with the liberal mentality. Its almost like a sickness.


    I don't think I'm better than everyone else. Just you.

    When you write ridiculous tings like "that is not how we do things in America" you demonstrate an extreme lack of the basic ways in which our government works. You are surrounded by socialism all the time and benefit from it all the time like when you drive a car on roads, or use an airport, or drink clean water. These are all socialized projects.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:37 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidIf a company or industry was seen as a threat to the stability of the US, the federal government could seize or nationalize it to prevent harm coming to the country.


    Sure. Just like the Democrats, if they are in control of the Presidency and the Congress, can have all Japanese-Americans rounded up and sent to internment camps (again).

    That doesn't make the action Constitutional.

    Now, where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government can nationalize a company that is "a threat to the stability of the US."

    (And don't cite "Necessary and Proper" please)


    SouthBeach - You don't understand the Constitution in a meaningful way, nor the 230+ years of constitutional jurisprudence that has followed its establishment. There are lots of Constitutional acts of government that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution because the founders meant for it to be a living document that guided the country, not a rote set of rules.

    In this instance, the case most applicable is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, wherein the Supreme Court found that while President Eisenhower could not through executive order nationalize a company, Congress could pass legislation to effect same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    There are a great many things that are not specifically enumerated to the federal government - child labour laws, OSHA, the Food & Drug Administration, NASA... and some might argue even the US Air Force, and the post 1947 national defense establishment.

    In the case of national defense establishments, the Constitution only permits a "Department of War" and a "Department of the Navy".

    Though I do agree that nationalizing entire industries goes beyond the pale into outright socialism (assuming a multinational or international oil company can be wholly nationalized without running afoul of international trade agreements or foreign sovereign interests in those companies)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    AlphaTrigger saidThere are a great many things that are not specifically enumerated to the federal government - child labour laws, OSHA, the Food & Drug Administration, NASA... and some might argue even the US Air Force, and the post 1947 national defense establishment.

    The Constitution only permits a "Department of War" and a "Department of the Navy".

    Though I do agree that nationalizing entire industries goes beyond the pale into outright socialism (assuming a multinational or international oil company can be wholly nationalized without running afoul of international trade agreements?)


    Exactly. And I don't think in most cases nationalization is even desirable but if an industry becomes dangerous to the well-being of the rest of the country, better to nationalize it, deal with the danger and then reprivatize it, as Iceland did during its banking crisis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:45 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    AlphaTrigger said...


    Exactly. And I don't think in most cases nationalization is even desirable but if an industry becomes dangerous to the well-being of the rest of the country, better to nationalize it, deal with the danger and then reprivatize it, as Iceland did during its banking crisis.


    I believe this practice is called placing a company into federal "receivership", no? The end goal being to restore that company's proper ownership at a specific time and manner when specific conditions are met?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2011 5:53 AM GMT
    AlphaTrigger said
    Christian73 said
    AlphaTrigger said...


    Exactly. And I don't think in most cases nationalization is even desirable but if an industry becomes dangerous to the well-being of the rest of the country, better to nationalize it, deal with the danger and then reprivatize it, as Iceland did during its banking crisis.


    I believe this practice is called placing a company into federal "receivership", no? The end goal being to restore that company's proper ownership at a specific time and manner when specific conditions are met?


    Yes. For banks it's been done through the FDIC primarily.