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.
Apparently you haven't spent much time doing your homework on McCain.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=52029
A Man of "Honor". Yeah, ok.
Right now she supports the top 3 Democrats( Hint...Clueless) .... Why the hell would you think she has done ANY homework?
Jillian is your typical lib... She will vote the Democratic ticket no matter what the consequensesbbb... They hate republicans more than they love their country!
He thinks we shouldn't give any foreign aid. He's naive enough to think that if he puts his hands over his ears and says "lalalalalala" that Israel and the pals will make all nicey-nice...Ron Paul thinks all our troops should be called back from all over the globe, without any assessment of what is necessary and what is not.
ron paul believes it is not the burden of AMERICA TO CONTROL THE WORLD
There is a big difference in foreign aid and humanitarian aid.
Ron Paul believes in smaller government with communities, churches, humanitarian (true ones) foundations, volunteerism and a host of other agencies being the prime force for humanitarian aid. Foreign aid on the other hand is unconstitutional and, in our current situation, is not used for what a Bill says it is to be used for anyway. It is a sham. ... Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. ...
Ron Paul
"I do believe that our current policies toward Israel are doing more harm than good to those we profess to support. Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance."
Paul said, "We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israels sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington."
He adds later, "The United States should take care of its own sovereignty while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of nations like Israel. That is the best way to preserve security and prosperity for all
He doesn't believe in government providing services. He doesn't believe in public education.
Close Dept. of Education, but don't dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.
A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I'm not. It's not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: that's a misquote. I do not recall that.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007
His policies are so pro white, anti-minority IN THEIR EFFECT, that the white supremacists adore him.
PRO-ZIONIST SPIN
He claims to believe in term limits, yet he's been in Congress for 19 years. He says he doesn't believe in earmarks but he'll take them for his district. He's a hypocrite, IMO.
WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul voted for each of the term limitation measures brought before the House of Representatives on Wednesday. While the measures failed, Paul said the real reforms needed to accomplish the same task must still be pursued.
Serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul was the first person in modern history to introduce a term limits measure.
"Term limits would have been good start, but the real problems which bring about the popularity of term limits can still be addressed," said Paul. "To restrict and reduce the power of incumbency, we should address the sweeping powers which the federal government possesses. It's the power that congressmen yield that makes them so untouchable in the electoral process. Until we return to a constitutional size of government, limiting the special favors congressmen can give to friends and big-money interests, the system will continue to be unfairly weighted to politicians and bureaucrats. Only when we limit the size of the federal government, when we end the programs which allow for federal handouts, will we see our Congress returned to the citizen-legislature intended by the Founders of this nation."
Paul has refused to participate in the congressional pension plan, and has long favored abolishing it. He said that when politicians realize they do not have taxpayer-funded benefits for life, their time in public office will be quickly reduced.
"By abolishing extravagant perks like the lucrative congressional pension plan, we will remove the incentives for people to make a career out of elected office."
QUOTE]As for Clinton, well, I don't really see the point in more anti-Clinton innuendo. I made the assessment I made of his presidency based on reasonable criteria... you know, like is it better now than it was then. Answer: A resounding no no no no no. And he was investigated up the yin yang for six years, so any "real scoop on Clinton" would have already been investigated and discounted by good ole Ken Starr... or he wouldn't have gone for just a blue dress.
So, I'm going to opt out of further Ron Paul discussions at this time. They really are a waste, IMO, because he's not a serious contender for the whitehouse and I find the real race much more exciting.
But we can still agree on Bruce.[/
THE REAL RACE IS A MEDIA(4TH BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT) CONTROLLED FRAUD paul is the only serious candidate and win or lose the revolution will continue and grow
As for this "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, I think it's dead wrong. No, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but strict constructionism didn't even exist as a means of constitutional construction until recently. In fact the term "strict construction" was first used in an Opinion that dealt with the santity of the First Amendment and reaffirmed individual liberties. It was never intended to limit the Court's right of review in any manner. It's a sham, IMO, that the right wing relies on to turn back the advancements that we've made since the 1960's.
Since Marbury v. Madison first addressed the Court's right of review, we have never bound ourselves by the strict letter of the document. We have always read into its intent and purpose. It was supposed to breathe enough to need very rare modification by way of amendment. And attempting to use the amendment process to limit individual protections and rights (as they did with prohibition and as the right would like to do vis a vis gay marriage) would have been anathema to the men who wrote the document.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=228But perhaps Jefferson's most important legacy was his respect for the constitutional limitations on the presidency, the "chains of the Constitution": federalism and separation of powers.
For instance, although he recommended that Congress appropriate money for such projects as roads, canals, and a national university, Jefferson also recognized that a constitutional amendment was necessary to enumerate such undertakings for the federal government.
"Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution," Jefferson noted. "Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Huh? Most everyone here has their minds made up already, I doubt that I'm changing anyone's mind. I just thought I'd take the time to correct something which is flatly wrong.
For the record, most conservatives believe in a living, breathing (read: dead) constitution also; they just won't admit it.
Ohhhhhh, Kayyyyyyyyyy. So you think most conservatives think the constitution is "dead"?
A. YES
Q. HAVE YOU BEEN DRINKING?
Ohhhhhh, Kayyyyyyyyyy. So you think most conservatives think the constitution is "dead"?
Q. HAVE YOU BEEN DRINKING?
A. YES
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=228
When modern-day liberals justify extremely broad readings of the constitution on the grounds that we need a "living, breathing constitution" that "changes with the times", they are actually recommending the very system the colonists sought to escape. The British constitution was very flexible indeed--too flexible for the colonists, who were inflexibly comitted to upholding their traditional rights. The "living, breathing" British constitution was no safeguard of american liberties.
Democrats, including jillian, love this country.
If you don't love her and her opinion then maybe you are the one with the problem with this country? Personally, I fought for the rights of both of your opinions. Please don't diminish my service to such idealogical nonsense.
That's nice. Might I recommend Marbury v Madison?
"strict constructionism goes against all traditional means of constitutional construction and no matter how many times conservatives say otherwise, that remains the truth.
Cheers.
Here's what James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said about the welfare clause: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The detail or enumeration to which Madison and Jefferson refer is found mostly in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
loony.
Is that quote from some legal scholar, or did you just pull it out of your ass? For the first, oh, 100+ years or so of this nation's history, the powers of the federal government were extremely limited, and this was well understood by the courts. Even the biggest centralizers like Hamilton would never have dreamed that the constitution allows the central government the power to run a retirement program, or a farm bureau, or fund local schools.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2638
While claiming legitimacy from the founders, they argue, a decision like Dred Scott flouts decades of evolving law and practice--in this case the Missouri Compromise, along with other statutes through which Congress sought to regulate slavery in the territories. The real orthodoxy and stability in law, says Blasi, is to adhere to the expanding thrust of precedent, and to respect and integrate the judgments of successive generations, rather than ascribe mythical intentions to the Founding Fathers. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have long since vanished."
Almost 40 years after Dred Scott, well after the Civil War and the l3th, l4th and l5th Amendments had guaranteed the long-denied citizenship and rights within all the United States, the court did it again. Seizing on the 14th Amendment's phrase "equal protection under the law," it upheld, in Plessy vs. Ferguson, a Louisiana statute mandating separate but "equal" public facilities for blacks. Indeed, those challenging Rehnquist's nomination cite a memorandum he once wrote stating, "I think Plessy vs. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed."
Meese has denigrated the Dred Scott and Plessy opinions and has cheered the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education verdict, whose broad result was to end legal segregation. In Brown, said Meese, the court "was restoring the original principle of the Constitution to constitutional law." Yet the Brown decision $ rests primarily on an interpretation, not a strict reading, of the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause. And it was attacked by segregationists at the time as social engineering that went against the intentions of the amendment's framers.
The fact is that original intent, as Attorney General Meese uses it, simply melts when held up to the flame of history. Justice Sandra O'Connor reaffirmed the point not long ago in her concurrence barring Alabama's moment of silence in public schools: "It is unlikely that the (framers) anticipated the problems of interaction of church and state in the public schools," she wrote, for the simple reason that, in the 18th century, there was virtually no public education as we know it.
Translation from Jewish to English: does not support the Jewish agenda in the middle east.
Also see "creepy," "lunatic," "crazies."
Meanwhile:
Bold. Dynamic. Original thinker. = Supports Israel. Supports bombing Iran. Supports the settlements.
From what little I've seen it looks to me more "putting up with" than "putting in with". But, as I have said, you are judged by the company you keep and the money you take. This is a tactical mistake for RP
That is the first error.
Second mistake. Reading the minds of dead men doesn't work.
Uh, no ma'am. It isn't alive. It is a document that specifically limits what the fed can do. It is rules and regulations. The amendment process is how we are supposed to allow it to change with the time. Why do judges make ruleings based on the writen statute but feel it is ok to read into the Constitution.
I am not going to debate the origins of "strict construction" or "living document" etc. I prefer to simply read the document and apply it literally. Not bad for an illiterate Jarhead huh?
Happy Friday
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
