Ruling Class Congressman Disses His Serfs
Unbelievable. The guy is a pig in trousers! These guys know they are untouchable because they have tons of big corporate and pro-illegal dollars. They can use that to run commercials telling the average voter what great people they are, but the few who meet them in person get the truth.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Saturday, July 24, 2010
13 Comments:
The arrogance and condescension of this guy is unbelievable. I know it's a cliche, but this guy is the poster boy for all that's wrong with Washington.
That he receives a paycheck from the U.S. taxpayer is beyond insult; it's outright criminal.
The ruling class at a candid moment.
"Serving" the people since 1973 in Congress.
In every word he says, you can clearly detect the utter contempt he holds for his underlings.
If the people in Stark's Congressional District re-elect this arrogant nitwit, they deserve to be fleeced.
By that measure, we all deserve to be fleeced.
With one or two exceptions (Arkansas not having any), they're all arrogant nitwits.
Our representatives are outwardly mild-toned and respectful as they turn our children into debt slaves so that the millionaires at JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs can keep awarding themselves huge bonuses no matter how poorly they perform.
I don't know which is worse. At least this pig is open and honest about his contempt for the public interest.
When Boozman tells me that he'd rather listen to Newt Gingrich than 85% of his constituents before supporting a taxpayer bailout of AIG and other banksters, that's ruling-class-arrogance no matter what mild mannered tone he uses to express himself. Of course, Blanche Lincoln is no better.
Again, we all deserve to be fleeced. Let's not look at someone else's congressman and act shocked or angered.
The guy is an ass but where in the constitution does it say that the feds have the power stop people from crossing the border? Is that one of those "implied powers" like abortion rights and not allowing states to secede?
Well, its really implied, not "implied" the way the liberals do it. It says that prior to 1837 (I think) Congress shall make no law banning the immigration or importation of persons into the U.S., other than a $10 per person tax.
In ordinary usage, that implies they CAN enact such a ban after 1837. Of course, it also means the states were in total control of their own immigration policy until 1837. I don't see where they ever lose it in terms of banning people on their own initiative. In other words, they may have lost the power to admit people that the feds ban after 1837 but no where does it even imply that the states lose the power to additionally ban whoever THEY want to ban from immigrating. Arizona is right!
Can states ban people from entering from other states?
No. Unfortunate isn't it!
Are you serious?
You can't tell? You must be from Wisconscon. They have no sense of humor and smell of stale cheese, that's why they should be banned from entering this state, if only the constitution permitted.
No, not really.
Post a Comment
<< Home