This will probably be banning myself, but a while ago, I started noticing that people who disagreed with Brad often got banned for things I knew I'd done. So, just to test things, anytime I saw someone get banned, I did about what they did, only far worse... I never got banned, in fact, I often got featured. :~D
Do any Obama supporters have anything to say about the Constitutionality of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are doing? Or does that matter to any of you?
[quote]This seems relatively apropos here.[/quote] Yes, and if all goes well, then maybe over 10,000 Americans can die in a heatwave like in France. Wouldn't that just be peachy?
Kingbee: Where in the US Constitution does it authorize Prs. Obama or the Congress to leverage a merger between two companies? What authority do they have to choose Fiat and make them the majority partner? If the US Constitution doesn't authorize them to do these things, there is no difference between them doing it or you and I doing it.
I wonder, if Obama is now going to run the Auto Industry, does that mean he should catch crap for flying around in extravagant jets and riding around in limos? :~D
When he can demonstrate the Constitutionality of his Marxism mixed with Fascism, I'll be comfortable with it.
[quote]Pretty much all problems can be traced to greed...or sex. ~Zoo[/quote] Comfort, Convenience & Sex... The holy trinity of Western Culture.
There are three kinds of facts in the world, actual fact, the "facts as I see it" and the "facts in the news". Actual facts are self explanatory. The "Facts as I see it" are fact, but are subject to opinion. The "facts in the news" are such a congregate of facts and outright lies, no one can tell the difference.
The dirty little secret the incompetent press and equally incompetent Pres. leave out of all this is, it wasn't simply fraud or overly stretched plastic that sent us where we are today. It is the natural consequence of the market correcting itself. When a business is riding on the value of it's assets, but in a few short months those assets lose 75-80% of their value, there is no "business as usual". But, add to that all the things you mentioned, and you have well... what
[quote]Now you get off of your soap box, and let the people who are trying to do something to help somany who need it, do what they can do. This is not about you and your opinions or about what you would do, Because if nothing is done, what will be the results for those people who have fallen and for the many more who are slowly losing their grip on their livelihood? Even more wide-spread, th
As Obama moves from one faux pas to the next, the people of other countries laugh at him while the leaders of other countries are coming up with ways to take advantage of him.
[quote]They send most of their money back to Mexico. They are patriotic, just not to the USA[/quote] Good point.
Illegal Aliens are as Patriotic like rapists are Feminists.
[quote]I just hope that Congress does not hide this in some bill that has nothing to do with the VA. That is the normal MO as of late. Then BO can then claim he has nothing to do with it, just like what he is doing with the AIG bonuses.[/quote] Either way, Obama has exposed his true feelings about the military and vets.
[quote]last december they devoted a cover to michelle obama's outrage over oprah movin in on barak[/quote] Or was it Obama's outrage over Michelle movin' in on Oprah. :~D :::Not that there's anything wrong with that:::
"Best investigative reporting on the planet. But go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes. "~Kay: Men In Black. I knew that movie was actually a training film for The best, of The best, of The best. :~D
Leauki, you're either illiterate or just a liar. Either way, I'm done with you.
[quote]I don't know what "benefits of marriage" the government has anything to do with, or should...And why shouldn't they? Anyone ought to be entitled to government protection of his property and contracts, regardless of whether they want to marry someone of the opposite sex or not. [/quote] You say you don't know what benefits of marriage the government has anything to do with, then you list two whole categories of them. How is it not a contradiction to say you don't kn
[quote] I don't know what "benefits of marriage" the government has anything to do with, or should. I am thinking inheritance rights, rights to make decisions, visiting rights in a hospital etc.. None of these require the government to do anything. [/quote] [quote]And why shouldn't they? Anyone ought to be entitled to government protection of his property and contracts, regardless of whether they want to marry someone of the opposite sex or not.[/quote] You seriously don't see
[quote] Ditto for civil unions. The government only has to register its existence. [/quote] You contradict yourself here. First you say that the government should provide all the benefits of marriage under the term "civil union", but now you say that the only participation the government would have in this contract is registering its existence. Providing benefits and protections is a lot more than just registering existence. A major argument for same sex marr
Yet another reason to not waste our time with our VA medical "benefits". During the Bush administration, the incompetent press reported that the Bush administration was charging troops for the food they ate while in military hospitals. This was only partly true. The injured servicemembers weren't being "charged" at all, they just didn't receive their "separate rations" pay. The truth is, very few troops receive "separate rations" pay fo
When it comes to the farmers markets, there is no need for all this bureaucracy. The produce is grown and sold by the same people. If someone comes down with a food borne illness, it is reported to the local health department. The patient is asked what they ate recently, and where they got it. Since the same people grow and sell the produce at their market (or stand at the market) it's easy to trace. And this entry here is patently unconstitution
[quote]What if the two people insist that the government recognise that the car changed owners? I would argue that all business deals involve other people if the government has to recognise the deal. For examples, tax liabilities change if someone sells a car (or "marries" his partner). [/quote] The purpose of titles and deeds it to establish ownership. When a person sells a car to someone else, the title is transfered and little is made of it. The only part of the transac
[quote] Black slavery affected someone outside the people who agreed with the concept. [/quote] You tried to make the point that I shouldn't have any say since "civil unions" wouldn't effect me. I gave an example of something that never would have been changed if those who had nothing to do with slavery kept their mouths shut. [quote]The drinking question is an interesting one. You are right, other people drinking doesn't affect you; just like other people forming c
1. How interested are you in the sex life of other people? What adults do in the privacy of their own place is their own business. 2. If two men enter a "civil union" or sign a contract about the sale of a car of the one to the other, what rights should you have in that deal? If the contract is between two individuals, I have no say in the deal at all. If the two people involve the people (through the gov
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums