Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am vaguely entertained by the thought that in the OP we have someone who claims to be defending the Constitution.... and he doesn't appear to understand the document that he has sworn to defend.... but... I seem to remember him also stating that his job was to 'defend us (meaning we, the people).... so he doesn't seem to understand his oath either.
One therefore could, logically, conclude that he is one seriously dumb fuck.
Oh, and he lies - constantly. In fact, it appears to be the only thing he is constant about.
Why don't you get a douche and jump on a trampoline all kind of ways to clear you mind before you speak to me?
"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".
Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.
I'm not tranquil about having Social programs that cause annual trillion dollar deficits and are multi trillion underfunded.
You're a Rush fan. Who'da thunk it.You just provided support for what she just said.
Oh great, another feminazi.
I'm not tranquil about having Social programs that cause annual trillion dollar deficits and are multi trillion underfunded.
Social Security is solvent for a long time and requires minor change to fix long term issues. Medicare requires regulatory controls and true competition, something the Obama administration was trying to do and the republicans stopped. Welfare and unemployment are temporary Social programs solved by creating jobs here and supporting companies that build here. Seems simple but why is it so hard.
"His job-creation record wont look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clintons administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office." Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
"The Republican theology of tax giveaways for the wealthy has not yet translated into a recovery for workers, but the combination of these cuts and rising government is likely to generate some job creation along with faster economic growth, Bernstein and Mishel say. Still, dispiriting recent wage trends and depressed employment levels suggest that a "self-sustaining, robust recovery is not just around the corner," they say." Bush's Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003) - Working Life
'It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs'
CHART OF THE DAY: It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs
something the Obama administration was trying to do and the republicans stopped.
No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so
As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.
The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.
The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.
They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.
Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.
Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?
Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?
THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.
Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society
I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.
No, ending these programs would be constitutional... if we elected to do so
As is having them also constitutional according to our current interpretation of our laws.
The world belongs to the LIVING, not to the dead.
The flounder fathers wrote a document that did NOT ties our hands with specific laws.
They understood, like those of you who imagine that there is a right "literal" interpretation of the Constitution do not, that one cannot bind the FUTURE generations to the vision of the current generation.
Most of us would not be able to VOTE, if we'd stuck to the constitution that our floundering fathers originally wrote.
Now who here wants to come out in favor of only allowing a very small percentage of the population to vote?
Who here wants to come out in favor of once again allowing slavery?
THAT would be a literal interpretation of the constitution that our floundering fathers passed.
Now I know some of you would be in favor of those changes to our society
I also know most of you who would like thise things, don't have the balls to openly admit it.
The founding fathers didn't have to deal with a powerful army of angry farmers demanding socialism in the form of government regulation of railroads and other industries whose prices and practices were monopolistic and unfair.
I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?
If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?
Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing to? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.
So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.
Your strawman is lame.
A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.
So you think that the corporations have no onus of reciprocity to the very economic structure and infrastructure that created the environment that these companies profit from. Not surprising, being as it comes from, well, you.
Section 8 housing is a reduction in rent. Show me how they don't equate beyond size and scale (a hint here, much less is spent on section 8 than is lost through corporate giveaways). What if the person (or hell, persons, they could form an unofficial cooperative) used the gains made through their bed and breakfast (s) to go fishing off the south of France, or to buy a few choice pieces of real estate in a neighboring state? Nice that you dodge the question chapter eleven protection as well.
contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility
True, like the Patriot Act the Repukes sponsored? How about when you Repukes force your shitty religion on homosexuals and say they can't marry?
So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.
Your strawman is lame.
A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.
So you think that the corporations have no onus of reciprocity to the very economic structure and infrastructure that created the environment that these companies profit from. Not surprising, being as it comes from, well, you.
Section 8 housing is a reduction in rent. Show me how they don't equate beyond size and scale (a hint here, much less is spent on section 8 than is lost through corporate giveaways). What if the person (or hell, persons, they could form an unofficial cooperative) used the gains made through their bed and breakfast (s) to go fishing off the south of France, or to buy a few choice pieces of real estate in a neighboring state? Nice that you dodge the question chapter eleven protection as well.
That's right corporations have no duty of reciprocity, but they do reciprocate because businesses large and small are the engines of our economy.
Chapter 11 has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor does section 8 housing, this is just an attempt on your part to steer the debate in another direction.
*click*
Flaylo? That little click sound you just heard. That was an USMB claymore. Now Si Modo, Cali Girl and Save are going to go off on you.
You grow more amusingly foolhardy by the day.The founding fathers didn't have to deal with a powerful army of angry farmers demanding socialism in the form of government regulation of railroads and other industries whose prices and practices were monopolistic and unfair.
A small government couldn't keep the big railroad and grain elevator corporations in line, so the people made the government bigger by giving it power to regulate private utilities devoted to public use.
A small nation with small problems needs a small government. A big nation with big problems needs a big government.
So you think that the corporations have no onus of reciprocity to the very economic structure and infrastructure that created the environment that these companies profit from. Not surprising, being as it comes from, well, you.
Section 8 housing is a reduction in rent. Show me how they don't equate beyond size and scale (a hint here, much less is spent on section 8 than is lost through corporate giveaways). What if the person (or hell, persons, they could form an unofficial cooperative) used the gains made through their bed and breakfast (s) to go fishing off the south of France, or to buy a few choice pieces of real estate in a neighboring state? Nice that you dodge the question chapter eleven protection as well.
That's right corporations have no duty of reciprocity, but they do reciprocate because businesses large and small are the engines of our economy.
Chapter 11 has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor does section 8 housing, this is just an attempt on your part to steer the debate in another direction.
They are not the "engines of our economy" when they expatriate everything but their voice mail.
Chapter 11 is a giveaway to corporations that do so, and a social safety net for those who fail whether they do so or NOT. Section 8 is equivalent, as it is a government sponsored reduction in COST, and the abuse I asked you about is a smaller scale of a corporation taking THEIR reductions and not using them the way they were intended to be used.
You do not argue honestly, and are willfully obtuse.
I am vaguely entertained by the thought that in the OP we have someone who claims to be defending the Constitution.... and he doesn't appear to understand the document that he has sworn to defend.... but... I seem to remember him also stating that his job was to 'defend us (meaning we, the people).... so he doesn't seem to understand his oath either.
One therefore could, logically, conclude that he is one seriously dumb fuck.
Oh, and he lies - constantly. In fact, it appears to be the only thing he is constant about.
Why don't you get a douche and jump on a trampoline all kind of ways to clear you mind before you speak to me?
I would reverse my rep if I could. You don't have a "unique" way of expressing yourself, you are vulgar, sexist, and objectionable in almost every measurable way. Even a good point is destroyed by your delivery, and the causes you champion are cheapened by they way you conduct yourself.
Prove it.
Why don't you get a job first before questioning me?
Not only am I gainfully employed, thanks... I can buy your ass twice and not notice it. Loser.
Flaylocontradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility
True, like the Patriot Act the Repukes sponsored? How about when you Repukes force your shitty religion on homosexuals and say they can't marry?
and the patriot act obama expanded and voted for the first time. Spin it I can spin it right back at you.
Care to try it again?
How is forcing a program on people who do not want it insure domestic Tranquility?
Why don't you get a douche and jump on a trampoline all kind of ways to clear you mind before you speak to me?
I would reverse my rep if I could. You don't have a "unique" way of expressing yourself, you are vulgar, sexist, and objectionable in almost every measurable way. Even a good point is destroyed by your delivery, and the causes you champion are cheapened by they way you conduct yourself.
California Girl dishes out and I give it back to her. maybe I have a foul mouth, thats one of my flaws, the Drill Sergeant in me creeps out.
