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.
The Slimes is reporting that Steele is dropping his bid for re-election to the post as GOP Chair.
All those evul whitey conservative Tea Party white folks must just be hatin' on the black man.
Lib talkin' pointless predicted this day at 4:13 p.m.!
The Slimes is reporting that Steele is dropping his bid for re-election to the post as GOP Chair.
All those evul whitey conservative Tea Party white folks must just be hatin' on the black man.
Lib talkin' pointless predicted this day at 4:13 p.m.!
WHO are the "The slimes" you're complaining about, exactly?
A link leading to these complaints might be nice.
The Slimes is reporting that Steele is dropping his bid for re-election to the post as GOP Chair.
All those evul whitey conservative Tea Party white folks must just be hatin' on the black man.
Lib talkin' pointless predicted this day at 4:13 p.m.!
WHO are the "The slimes" you're complaining about, exactly?
A link leading to these complaints might be nice.
I see the Tea Party-backed governor of your state turned down an invitation from the NAACP to attend an event to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. And if they don't like LePage said, they can 'kiss my butt'
THIS is the type of leader the Tea party produces?
WHO are the "The slimes" you're complaining about, exactly?
A link leading to these complaints might be nice.
I see the Tea Party-backed governor of your state turned down an invitation from the NAACP to attend an event to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. And if they don't like LePage said, they can 'kiss my butt'
THIS is the type of leader the Tea party produces?
Yeah we're all looking forward to LaPage's leadership...either with trepidation or high expectations, but I think its safe to assume that we all expect major changes one way or the other.
The assault on America for the last 40 years by the GOP has been a death of a million cuts. The once proud repository for intellectual and fiscal responsibility has suffered the disease of fundamental dishonesty. Any means to an end has been the unspoken marching mantra. It has been fully transformed and molded by people that base their own personal beliefs on unprovable "truths". Because these so called truths cannot self sustain, the "true believers", sought the funding to promote the "new" republican party and were a perfect target for those that would take advantage of the gullible. The keys to the door of their allegiance are but the magic words and disingenuous contributions they are in so desperate need of to validate their preposterous religious beliefs. They have traded off every thing else of value to any and all willing to validate their flawed fundamental dogma. It does not matter any more what direction these people chose to go. They have created an intellectual wilderness willfully dumbing down the population of America. There is little or no hope of ever recovering from what they have done. We are doomed.
The assault on America for the last 40 years by the GOP has been a death of a million cuts. The once proud repository for intellectual and fiscal responsibility has suffered the disease of fundamental dishonesty. Any means to an end has been the unspoken marching mantra. It has been fully transformed and molded by people that base their own personal beliefs on unprovable "truths". Because these so called truths cannot self sustain, the "true believers", sought the funding to promote the "new" republican party and were a perfect target for those that would take advantage of the gullible. The keys to the door of their allegiance are but the magic words and disingenuous contributions they are in so desperate need of to validate their preposterous religious beliefs. They have traded off every thing else of value to any and all willing to validate their flawed fundamental dogma. It does not matter any more what direction these people chose to go. They have created an intellectual wilderness willfully dumbing down the population of America. There is little or no hope of ever recovering from what they have done. We are doomed.
Do you believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land?
The assault on America for the last 40 years by the GOP has been a death of a million cuts. The once proud repository for intellectual and fiscal responsibility has suffered the disease of fundamental dishonesty. Any means to an end has been the unspoken marching mantra. It has been fully transformed and molded by people that base their own personal beliefs on unprovable "truths". Because these so called truths cannot self sustain, the "true believers", sought the funding to promote the "new" republican party and were a perfect target for those that would take advantage of the gullible. The keys to the door of their allegiance are but the magic words and disingenuous contributions they are in so desperate need of to validate their preposterous religious beliefs. They have traded off every thing else of value to any and all willing to validate their flawed fundamental dogma. It does not matter any more what direction these people chose to go. They have created an intellectual wilderness willfully dumbing down the population of America. There is little or no hope of ever recovering from what they have done. We are doomed.
Do you believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land?
Absolutely! UMMmmm... Yes and no. As I read the Constitution and take in the context of the times in which it was written I marvel at the boldness of the contention that an individual is determined in it's words to be the ultimate authority. Of the people..by the people and for the people. In truth and fact the highest law of the land is how the Supreme Court decides what the framers intent was. I do not always agree with their interpretations. So back to my default position which is that the Constitution gives ME all the rights I need to live my life among others. That does not spare me the need to defend those rights from time to time.
Do you believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land?
Absolutely! UMMmmm... Yes and no. As I read the Constitution and take in the context of the times in which it was written I marvel at the boldness of the contention that an individual is determined in it's words to be the ultimate authority. Of the people..by the people and for the people. In truth and fact the highest law of the land is how the Supreme Court decides what the framers intent was. I do not always agree with their interpretations. So back to my default position which is that the Constitution gives ME all the rights I need to live my life among others. That does not spare me the need to defend those rights from time to time.
This is why the country is failing cause of your mindset. The constitution IS the highest law. Period. The intent is Obvious to all.
Absolutely! UMMmmm... Yes and no. As I read the Constitution and take in the context of the times in which it was written I marvel at the boldness of the contention that an individual is determined in it's words to be the ultimate authority. Of the people..by the people and for the people. In truth and fact the highest law of the land is how the Supreme Court decides what the framers intent was. I do not always agree with their interpretations. So back to my default position which is that the Constitution gives ME all the rights I need to live my life among others. That does not spare me the need to defend those rights from time to time.
This is why the country is failing cause of your mindset. The constitution IS the highest law. Period. The intent is Obvious to all.
The 'intent' of the Constitution' is not obvious. Things like the 'general welfare clause' have been debated since the beginning of our nation. The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
HUGGY is absolutely right. The dogma driven folks who took over the GOP don't even know WHY we're in the mess we're in, how can they possibly craft any solutions?
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement
Do you believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land?
Absolutely! UMMmmm... Yes and no. As I read the Constitution and take in the context of the times in which it was written I marvel at the boldness of the contention that an individual is determined in it's words to be the ultimate authority. Of the people..by the people and for the people. In truth and fact the highest law of the land is how the Supreme Court decides what the framers intent was. I do not always agree with their interpretations. So back to my default position which is that the Constitution gives ME all the rights I need to live my life among others. That does not spare me the need to defend those rights from time to time.
This is why the country is failing cause of your mindset. The constitution IS the highest law. Period. The intent is Obvious to all.
This is why the country is failing cause of your mindset. The constitution IS the highest law. Period. The intent is Obvious to all.
The 'intent' of the Constitution' is not obvious. Things like the 'general welfare clause' have been debated since the beginning of our nation. The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
HUGGY is absolutely right. The dogma driven folks who took over the GOP don't even know WHY we're in the mess we're in, how can they possibly craft any solutions?
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement
show the general welfare clause.
The 'intent' of the Constitution' is not obvious. Things like the 'general welfare clause' have been debated since the beginning of our nation. The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
HUGGY is absolutely right. The dogma driven folks who took over the GOP don't even know WHY we're in the mess we're in, how can they possibly craft any solutions?
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement
show the general welfare clause.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:
* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
wiki
Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure peoples liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.
Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.
SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.
Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.
If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.
I didnt say it was your fault just that your mindset is fucked up. If something is shown to not work in the constitution you amend it. You dont work around it. Why do you think the founders made it so hard to amend the constitution? It has yet to be outdated. It is still very relevant. The only amendments I can see it needing is to amend the 16th and 17th amendment cause it has shown to hurt the country.Absolutely! UMMmmm... Yes and no. As I read the Constitution and take in the context of the times in which it was written I marvel at the boldness of the contention that an individual is determined in it's words to be the ultimate authority. Of the people..by the people and for the people. In truth and fact the highest law of the land is how the Supreme Court decides what the framers intent was. I do not always agree with their interpretations. So back to my default position which is that the Constitution gives ME all the rights I need to live my life among others. That does not spare me the need to defend those rights from time to time.
This is why the country is failing cause of your mindset. The constitution IS the highest law. Period. The intent is Obvious to all.
You are funny. So now everything is MY fault? The Constitution is only as high a law as the people serve and protect it. What did Franklin say?..."Those of you willing to exchange freedom for security deserve neither?" or words to that effect. The framers were not clairvoyant. Their vision was astonishing none the less. The Constitution is on a pedestal because it is all we have to guide us. It has been under assault since it's conception. Most of those that have been in the lead making changes(amendments) believed that THEIR interpretation was the correct one. Just the fact that there have been changes over the years indicates a lack of perfection in the original document. You have your opinion. That is fully covered in the Constitution. I have mine which is no less validated. I am too old to buy into your view unless it coincides with my own. Your investment in bullshit would be best sold to someone with fewer miles traveled. I'm good.
show the general welfare clause.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:
* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
wiki
Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure peoples liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.
Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.
SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.
Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.
If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.
quote it from the constitution not what you think it says.
like I thought.The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
There were two primary authors of the The Federalist essays that set forth separate and conflicting interpretations:
* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
And, Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, and has been heatedly debated ever since. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
wiki
Thomas Jefferson also disagreed with Hamilton on what their newly born republic should look like. Jefferson preferred the French style Republic over one similar to the British Monarchy. Jefferson believed that the government was created to ensure peoples liberty. His vision for America was an agrarian society where people could become independent farmers and be self-sufficient. And he wanted to avoid what he witnessed during his years in Europe. He wanted to avoid the urban city messes that were too common in Europe, as well as to avoid the poverty and inequality.
Hamilton's vision was more of an industrialized society and he was partial to the moneyed interests of the cities. He was a believer in a militarily strong national government.
SO...America today is a Hamiltonian republic on steroids, well beyond what even Hamilton would accept. If ANY of our founding fathers were to return to see how their experiment in government turned out, they would be appalled that the corporations and moneyed interests have recreated the aristocracy they fought against.
Thomas Jefferson was probably the most intelligent of of founders IMO. His liberalism and his intellect would guide him if he were to magically reappear. He would view today's society, access the carnage and support the necessary social services that are the consequences of Hamilton's vision.
If our founders returned unrecognized and spoke out, they would be ostracized and labeled traitors, marxists, communists, and liberal fascists 24/7 on Fox News, America's Pravda.
quote it from the constitution not what you think it says.
Go read it yourself, your mommy doesn't work here.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
like I thought.quote it from the constitution not what you think it says.
Go read it yourself, your mommy doesn't work here.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
like I thought.Go read it yourself, your mommy doesn't work here.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
What are you saying, it doesn't exist?
