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.
hmmmm, cbs is right some of the time? funny, I see this same kind of idiocy with hose on the left who think FOX NEWS is mostly wrong. thing is, I see all media networks as being truthful. They just have a slant or a heavy ideological bias on the talking head side of programming.Coporate bailouts? I have been looking at the posts and I am having trouble determining which company you are referring to. Lehman Brothers were not bailed out at all. No major consequences from that. GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler. Could it be members of Congress simply didn't want to see their banker golf buddies lose their jobs?
GM was bailed out and they still went bankrupt. Same for Chrysler.???
Do you belive CBS is a credible source?
CBS) Chrysler's sad tale that led to this week's bankruptcy hearing in New York is not only an important business and political story. It also encompasses morality, the rule of law and strong-arm tactics used by some politicians.
Our story begins with the slow downfall of Chrysler, which succumbed to bankruptcy after experiencing a steep sales decline of 48 percent in one year. During its slide, Chrysler borrowed money from lenders and in return signed a contract promising that as so-called senior creditors, they'd get paid before anyone else if the company went under.
These creditors, by the way, represent something of a cross-section of America: the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods' retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers' credit unions, and so on.
A normal bankruptcy filing would be straightforward. Senior creditors get paid 100 cents on the dollar. Everyone else gets in line.
But President Obama and his allies don't want that to happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to head to bankruptcy court.
Last week Mr. Obama lambasted them as "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."
Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."
It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.
If those politicians thought about this a bit more, they'd probably realize their mistake. Creditors didn't force Chrysler's management to head to the capital markets and beg for funds: It was poor management, uncompetitive wages, and a union that opposed pay cuts.
Just what is your question about GM and Chrysler going bankrupt? Yes they did. Certainly not in the coventional sense. If that was your point I agree. Was it misplaced loyalty? Yes. No, I don't consider CBS a credible source, but even fools can repeat things that are true.
Marriage is an institution of God, therefore the Church. How can the government mandate a Church activity? The government can handout civil unions to gerbils for all I care, but not marriages. Of course, if you want to break down the wall between Church and State....
Marriage is an institution of God, therefore the Church. How can the government mandate a Church activity? The government can handout civil unions to gerbils for all I care, but not marriages. Of course, if you want to break down the wall between Church and State....
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
Marriage is an institution of God, therefore the Church. How can the government mandate a Church activity? The government can handout civil unions to gerbils for all I care, but not marriages. Of course, if you want to break down the wall between Church and State....
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
Marriage is a civil contract. Nobody wants to have churches recognize every marriage. YOu poor morons need to get out more often.
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
Marriage is a civil contract. Nobody wants to have churches recognize every marriage. YOu poor morons need to get out more often.
oh i forgot you created the institution of marriage right? you get to define the terms? i dont care what you think the word marriage meens. who created it?
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
Marriage is a civil contract. Nobody wants to have churches recognize every marriage. YOu poor morons need to get out more often.
oh i forgot you created the institution of marriage right? you get to define the terms? i dont care what you think the word marriage meens[sic]. who created it?
-wikipediaDefinitions
According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."[5]
Philosopher, historian, and literary essayist Thomas De Quincey defined marriage as "a union between two persons, who lived in harmony so absolute with each other, as to be independent of the world outside."[6]
In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo.[7] According to the first edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language published in 1806, marriage was defined as "the act of joining man and woman..." [8]
By 2009, all major English language dictionaries dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions.[9][10]
The primary definition of Marriage in Merriam-Webster is "1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"[11]
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
these idiots think the government instituted marriage. they think they can claim anything. they dont have the right to marry because God says so, not the government. plus why would someones who lives a lifestyle defying God want to get married in the first place? i'm sure if they instituted their own type of union, no one would object.
Ummm... not to jump over Dev's posts, since he's perfectly capable of kicking your butt on his own, but marriage was civil in nature. It was a means of dealing with property rights. That's why there were dower and courtesy laws. They were means by which two families secured their position.
And, btw, many kings reserved for themselves the right to utilize the bride prior to her getting married.
If you think marriage was religious in nature, you need to go back and study.
Even today, when a religious representative is performing a marriage, he/she acknowledges that the marriage is being performed by powers vested in them by the State.
I would also point out that you do not need a religious service to be married.
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?Ame®icano;1619415 said:Ame®icano;1619363 said:Only thing is... where do you see PROVIDING general welfare?
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
LII: Constitution
What is general welfare?
Because people stopped paying attention. Also losing the rights to secession and nullification played a big role.
At this point I think we'd be better off with the Articles of Confederation.
why wouldn't we be better off just adhering to and upholding our current document?
Because people stopped paying attention. Also losing the rights to secession and nullification played a big role.
At this point I think we'd be better off with the Articles of Confederation.
why wouldn't we be better off just adhering to and upholding our current document?
Because the document has been butchered since 1949.Yep. 1949.
That was the beginning of World Empire and the beginning of The End of this idiotic movie.
US Enters the Korean Conflict
Mpyre.The nation formerly known as the United States of America.
Sound familiar ?
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?Ame®icano;1619415 said:Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
LII: Constitution
What is general welfare?
If individual people are the nation then does any individual have the authority to say print their own money ?(Reduction to absurdity)
In short that means that all laws apply to everyone.. Which means that marriage laws apply to homosexuals..
Moron!
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?Ame®icano;1619415 said:Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
LII: Constitution
What is general welfare?
If individual people are the nation then does any individual have the authority to say print their own money ?(Reduction to absurdity)
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?Ame®icano;1619415 said:What is general welfare?
If individual people are the nation then does any individual have the authority to say print their own money ?(Reduction to absurdity)
Over 90% (11.1 Trillion out of 11.9 Trillion) of our country's debt was built up during Republican administrations, or as a result of interest on said debt.
Red States pay a smaller share of the taxes, per capita, and receive a larger share of Federal Funding, per capita.
Since I assume you're referring to Democrats with your lame accusations of "buying votes with welfare checks", how do you explain this?
Or were you referring to the Republicans?
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?
If individual people are the nation then does any individual have the authority to say print their own money ?(Reduction to absurdity)
Over 90% (11.1 Trillion out of 11.9 Trillion) of our country's debt was built up during Republican administrations, or as a result of interest on said debt.
Red States pay a smaller share of the taxes, per capita, and receive a larger share of Federal Funding, per capita.
Since I assume you're referring to Democrats with your lame accusations of "buying votes with welfare checks", how do you explain this?
Or were you referring to the Republicans?
I suspect that most of that money is being spent on federally mandated programs that the federal government demands each state to do. Every dollar has a condition attached to the spending in such a way that that money gets spent on whatever the federal government wants them to do. Its not an act of charity but a way to get states to comply with the federal government so it has its own purpose that has nothing to do with charity. This is why red states might get more money because they tend to resist the federal government more so more money is needed to get the state legislatures to comply.
Now maybe you make a point about Red States not accepting money but what power to citizens have to stop it when the legislatures hide the spending so that their voters don't know how that money is getting spent so its really a way of corrupting state governments into getting them to do the federal government's bidding.
Which is why we should never blame the victim of this crime aka red state voters and blame the perpetrators of the crime and that is the federal government itself.
when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?
A better question - how is it Providing for the "general welfare of the United States" to spend our nation into bankruptcy on a system of giving government money to people in order to purchase their votes, said votes being of utility only to the political party which issues the welfare checks?Ame®icano;1619415 said:What is general welfare?
If individual people are the nation then does any individual have the authority to say print their own money ?(Reduction to absurdity)
Over 90% (11.1 Trillion out of 11.9 Trillion) of our country's debt was built up during Republican administrations, or as a result of interest on said debt.
Red States pay a smaller share of the taxes, per capita, and receive a larger share of Federal Funding, per capita.
Since I assume you're referring to Democrats with your lame accusations of "buying votes with welfare checks", how do you explain this?
Or were you referring to the Republicans?
