Clinton: $5,000.00 For Every US Baby

[JLB]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Clinton said such an account program would help Americans get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

more:http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/clinton_baby_bonds/2007/09/28/36537.html

[sukie]

Geezus!

[JLB]

I thought you might enjoy that one. :guy:

[JLB]

This was my favorite part:

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

[mighty peace warrior]

where i can i sign up to give money to other people's kids!

[sukie]

where i can i sign up to give money to other people's kids!

Democratic National Committee HDQTRS

[Sparx]

Hey poor people, start shitting out babies! oh I mean, start shitting out MORE babies!

[kybillsfan]

That is the most absurd proposal from a political figure I have ever seen in my life. We need to give money to people for doing absolutley nothing why???

[TigerJ]

Typical of politicians. They pretend that the government is giving away money, while in reality they are forcing taxpayers to engage in giveaways. My wife and I helped our older daughter through college and grad school. We're working on our younger daughter. And we are adopting a girl who will graduate high school the same year I retire. Presumably we'll help her through college. And now Hillary Clinton wants to tax me so she can take credit for giving someone else's kid money that came from me?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Yet most of you hypocrites favour the purchasing of weapons instead of schools.

[JimKelly12203]

I just had twins. Where is my 10k?

PAY ME BIOTCH!!! Believe me i could use it!

[notacon]

This was my favorite part:

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Easy to pay for...just don't fund the Iraq war for a month or so.

[pabstman]

Why dosn't she pay for it with the money gained by repealling Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy. That's what their using to pay for all of the other socialist programs being kicked around.

[35Pete]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Clinton said such an account program would help Americans get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

more:http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/clinton_baby_bonds/2007/09/28/36537.html
She's such a bull shitting liar.

It's coming out of MY pocket.

Bitch.

[pmoon6]

That would be just grand.

Provide another reason for the wetbacks to come over and squeeze out 5 or 6 ninas.

[35Pete]

That would be just grand.

Provide another reason for the wetbacks to come over and squeeze out 5 or 6 ninas.

Moonie. It's not that she doesn't mind enticing half of the central American population to cross the Texas border.

She wants that.

Cause that's more DEMOCRATIC voters.

Remember, these two crime families could give a royal rat's ass about the nation. Party first. Always.

[sukie]

Why dosn't she pay for it with the money gained by repealling Bush's tax breaks to the wealthy. That's what their using to pay for all of the other socialist programs being kicked around.

:rofl: that is a good one. The magic trunk full of cash.

[pmoon6]

Along with the "baby bonus" I think we should get crackin' on that reparations thing.

Every black man and woman should get $1,000,000 for the pain and suffering they have endured at the hands of the evil white men.

If you are only partially black, you should get a percentage.

[JLB]

She's such a bull shitting liar.

It's coming out of MY pocket.

Bitch.

Yes it is and yes she is on both counts. :D

great av choice Pete.

[Meridius]

Im still waiting for all the jobs she promised WNY

[nehemiah]

so nobody knows what a "bond" is?

okey dokey.

[sukie]

Nehe I know what a bond is.

[nehemiah]

Nehe I know what a bond is.then explain it to the poptarts who believe this is money going into parent's pockets.

gracias.

[sukie]

Well My Question would be is it a 5000 bond (face cost) or a bond that will yield 5000 when mature... Then I can explain it to them.

[mighty peace warrior]

then explain it to the poptarts who believe this is money going into parent's pockets.

gracias.

its magic money that noone actually has to pay for....


free money for da kids!!!

what could be the downside?

[uppy]

That would be just grand.

Provide another reason for the wetbacks to come over and squeeze out 5 or 6 ninas.


every child born in the United States should get a $5,000

You don't think she meant "every child born to US citizens" ?

:rofl:

Libs are always whimpering about the planet being overpopulated and then they turn around and want to give all these worthless criminals $5,000
per kid to overload our healthcare and school systems.

[TheGoodShepherd]

In other news, the US just successfully tested a missile defence system. It was the second time in ten tries the missile hit it's target. The cost of the test was $85 million.

Here's the best part. The flight path of the intercepted missile was scripted. There were no counter measures employed by the missiles. In short, it wasn't even close to a real life simulation.

But hey, taxpayers paid $85 million for it.

I guess it's better than new schools or textbooks for America's decaying schools.

[35Pete]

In other news, the US just successfully tested a missile defence system. It was the second time in ten tries the missile hit it's target. The cost of the test was $85 million.

Here's the best part. The flight path of the intercepted missile was scripted. There were no counter measures employed by the missiles. In short, it wasn't even close to a real life simulation.

But hey, taxpayers paid $85 million for it.

I guess it's better than new schools or textbooks for America's decaying schools.

LMAO!!!

[mighty peace warrior]

you would be glad if you were in the path of number 2

[uppy]

In other news, the US just successfully tested a missile defence system. It was the second time in ten tries the missile hit it's target. The cost of the test was $85 million.

Here's the best part. The flight path of the intercepted missile was scripted. There were no counter measures employed by the missiles. In short, it wasn't even close to a real life simulation.

But hey, taxpayers paid $85 million for it.

I guess it's better than new schools or textbooks for America's decaying schools.

Where in the Constitution does it say the goverment should pay for schools

[TheGoodShepherd]

Where in the Constitution does it say the goverment should pay for schools

Where in your brain do you come up with silly angles to approach a serious topic?

[35Pete]

Im still waiting for all the jobs she promised WNY

You mean she never got that legislation passed guaranteeing the instant creation of 100,000 jobs for the region?

Wow. Bitch is getting lazy.

Either that or like a good little democratic politician she's trying to ram a bill through congress making it a federal crime for Buffalo to have anymore blizzards.

Of course the legislation doesn't have to work for her moron supporters to enthusiastically back her. Cause the bill demonstrates a few things.

1. That she cares about the people (that statement in general makes me want to :barf: ).
2. That at least she's trying to do something.
3. Banning blizzards hurts the rich because then they can't make a profit by price gouging road salt.

[35Pete]

Where in the Constitution does it say the goverment should pay for schools

Uppy. Don't get all selective about the constitution. You either defend it all or pipe down and leave it to me.

Chimp. Paying for books is not a constitutional role of government. I sure as hell want DECENTRALIZATION of schools ASAP. Centralization has accomplished what now?

[mighty peace warrior]

Where in the Constitution does it say the goverment should pay for schools

where does it say it won't?

[uppy]

Where in your brain do you come up with silly angles to approach a serious topic?

Why should I pay for other kids education its not in the Constitution,

paying for that missile test is.

[35Pete]

where does it say it won't?

That's not a good argument at all. History is abound with documents clearly indicating that the constitution is a constraining document. What is not enumerated is not allowed.

Plus MPW, take a peek at amendments #9 and #10. They do exist, they are just all too commonly ignored.

[uppy]

where does it say it won't?

where does it say you can have a abortion, is that your arguement ?

[35Pete]

Why should I pay for other kids education its not in the Constitution,

paying for that missile test is.

Well that may be true the founders abhorred the creation of standing armies fearing that our nation might turn into the embarrassing imperialistic shit hole that it is today. So you need to also consider the spirit IN ADDITION to the letter of the document. Not either or..

[uppy]

Uppy. Don't get all selective about the constitution. You either defend it all or pipe down and leave it to me.

Chimp. Paying for books is not a constitutional role of government. I sure as hell want DECENTRALIZATION of schools ASAP. Centralization has accomplished what now?

We agree on almost all points except that foolish idea you have about
"declared wars" Pete

[mighty peace warrior]

you can't just say since its not in the constitution its unconstitutional. Talk about bastardizing a document, that clearly wasn't intended to be the be all end all.

you two popping off doesn't make something unconstitutional

[mighty peace warrior]

where does it say you can have a abortion, is that your arguement ?

abortions are not unconstitutional

way to bring in the classic distractionary tactic of abortions.

[uppy]

Well that may be true the founders abhorred the creation of standing armies fearing that our nation might turn into the embarrassing imperialistic shit hole that it is today. So you need to also consider the spirit IN ADDITION to the letter of the document. Not either or..

Provide for the common defense= missile test

[35Pete]

you can't just say since its not in the constitution its unconstitutional. Talk about bastardizing a document, that clearly wasn't intended to be the be all end all.

you two popping off doesn't make something unconstitutional

You don't know what you are talking about.

A mechanism was left in place for the document to be exactly that. The be all end all. It was CLEARLY intended to be just that.

Uppy. Like I said. Defend the whole goddamn document or just pipe up. Because this looks opprotunistic to me rather than heartfelt.

[mighty peace warrior]

That's not a good argument at all. History is abound with documents clearly indicating that the constitution is a constraining document. What is not enumerated is not allowed.

Plus MPW, take a peek at amendments #9 and #10. They do exist, they are just all too commonly ignored.

actually what isn't spelled out is up to the state governments to use whatever "powers" are not spelled out in the constitution.


"What is not enumerated is not allowed". talk about misrepresentation

[uppy]

abortions are not unconstitutional

way to bring in the classic distractionary tactic of abortions.

:rofl:

I don't know it looks to me like you first used the old distractionary tactic

trick.

[mighty peace warrior]

You don't know what you are talking about.

A mechanism was left in place for the document to be exactly that. The be all end all. It was CLEARLY intended to be just that.

Uppy. Like I said. Defend the whole goddamn document or just pipe up. Because this looks opprotunistic to me rather than heartfelt.

so you say...quit talking out of your ass.

you saying its so doesn't make it so

if the constitution was intended to be the only law there wouldn't be provisions for making laws in other ways written into it.

[mighty peace warrior]

stick to telling us how phones work pete, or complex math problems.

you are worse than a jailhouse lawyer

[35Pete]

Provide for the common defense= missile test

The argument for "common defense" is just as specious as "promote the common welfare".

And any non-idiotic, non-moron has read Federalist Paper #44 (James Madison, address to State of New York, I believe) which clearly demonstrates the folly of "general welfare" as a license for imperial Washington to do "whatever the **** it wanted".

[mighty peace warrior]

:rofl:

I don't know it looks to me like you first used the old distractionary tactic

trick.

you brought up abortion to avoid the issue, its classic use of something that is more an emotional argument than a legal one.

[35Pete]

stick to telling us how phones work pete, or complex math problems.

you are worse than a jailhouse lawyer

But you haven't said a frigging thing here. I mean nothing. You just spout *yawn* boring platitudes and banal trite statements of fact without any supportive arguments.

You're funny. You ought to be a comedian.

[uppy]

you brought up abortion to avoid the issue, its classic use of something that is more an emotional argument than a legal one.




That would suggest I have guile or hidden motive....I'm shocked you
would say that about me my leg friend


lol

[mighty peace warrior]

But you haven't said a frigging thing here. I mean nothing. You just spout *yawn* boring platitudes and banal trite statements of fact without any supportive arguments.

You're funny. You ought to be a comedian.

BS, you are twisting facts to make a "point"

for a self proclaimed "constitutionalist" you don't even seem to get the idea behind the thing...be all end all my ass


and whats worse is all you have said, is "I know what I am talking about just listen"

roflmao....

[mighty peace warrior]

That would suggest I have guile or hidden motive....I'm shocked you
would say that about me my leg friend


lol

who woulda thunk it?

[35Pete]

BS, you are twisting facts to make a "point"

for a self proclaimed "constitutionalist" you don't even seem to get the idea behind the thing...be all end all my ass


and whats worse is all you have said, is "I know what I am talking about just listen"

roflmao....

What facts am I twisting? You're a crazy guy! LOL

I think that if you look back on my posts I deliver arguments. You deliver unsubstantiated statements. Sort of like the junk that I am now responding to.

[mighty peace warrior]

you deliver half truths and misrepresentations...just like your idol

There are basically no facts in any posts you made in this thread. Just your twisted vision of what the constitution represents.

Feel free to show me anywhere in the constitution that prohibits the government from doing this?

seriously back it up already

or show me where it says the government isn't allowed to make any laws or start any programs that aren't constitutional ammendments?

[35Pete]

you deliver half truths and misrepresentations...just like your idol

There are basically no facts in any posts you made in this thread. Just your twisted vision of what the constitution represents.

Feel free to show me anywhere in the constitution that prohibits the government from doing this?

seriously back it up already

or show me where it says the government isn't allowed to make any laws or start any programs that aren't constitutional ammendments?

I already did but you cannot read apparently. 9th and 10th amendments. Federalist #44.

Look it up. Let's see if you can read that kind of stuff.

Now you seem to love making unsubstantiated accusations. Since you have avoided my past challenges in this thread maybe you'll finally answer one, perhaps this one:

What "half truths" do you speak of?

[pmoon6]

you deliver half truths and misrepresentations...just like your idol

There are basically no facts in any posts you made in this thread. Just your twisted vision of what the constitution represents.

Feel free to show me anywhere in the constitution that prohibits the government from doing this?

seriously back it up already

or show me where it says the government isn't allowed to make any laws or start any programs that aren't constitutional ammendments?I'll back the Warrior up on this one.

In my view, and I'm not a lawyer, the Constitution is a framework and sets parameters which all other laws must adhere to.

It doesn't violate the framework to pass such a law.

Of course, as with Roe vs Wade, some hotbed issues end up in the Court because lilly livered politicians won't legislate because it might hurt their careers to take one side or the other. They leave it up to the Court to make a decision because the SC judges don't have to answer to the voting public.

The thing is, Supreme Court justices are like the rest of us and subject to their own prejudices and concerns. The framework is subject to interpretation by these supposedly impartial human beings. "Original Intent" "The Greater Good" and "Public Welfare" are all things that are considered when making a ruling. I think alot of the Constitution is ambiguous. Justices may see things that aren't there, as do we.

Who are we, people not versed in the law and certainly not legal scholars, to say what is and what is not constitutional? It's just our own interpetation and not a very knowledgable one. At least the Court can judge with far more expertise than we can.

[35Pete]

I'll back the Warrior up on this one.

In my view, and I'm not a lawyer, the Constitution is a framework and sets parameters which all other laws must adhere to.

It doesn't violate the framework to pass such a law.

Of course, as with Roe vs Wade, some hotbed issues end up in the Court because lilly livered politicians won't legislate because it might hurt their careers to take one side or the other. They leave it up to the Court to make a decision because the SC judges don't have to answer to the voting public.

The thing is, Supreme Court justices are like the rest of us and subject to their own prejudices and concerns. The framework is subject to interpretation by these supposedly impartial human beings. "Original Intent" "The Greater Good" and "Public Welfare" are all things that are considered when making a ruling. I think alot of the Constitution is ambiguous. Justices may see things that aren't there, as do we.

Who are we, people not versed in the law and certainly not legal scholars, to say what is and what is not constitutional? It's just our own interpetation and not a very knowledgable one. At least the Court can judge with far more expertise than we can.

Look at all the supporting documentation of the constitution moonie. A big problem is that too many people look at the constitution without looking at the writings (and there are at least a hundred major writings) of the constitutional founders which clearly demonstrate the intent. In other words my friend, I don't see the constitution as ambiguous at all. Many, and I am not implying you, want to see that ambiguity so that they can pass whatever law that they feel is for the greater good without having a constraining framework or historical contract impede them.

Ohh, thanks for doing something that the "warrior" wouldn't. That is..engage the argument and offer a somewhat reasoned debate. Although I cannot agree, your thoughts and efforts are appreciated and respected. :)

The trite statements of fact bore the hell out of me.

[JLB]

Look at all the supporting documentation of the constitution moonie. A big problem is that too many people look at the constitution without looking at the writings (and there are at least a hundred major writings) of the constitutional founders which clearly demonstrate the intent. In other words my friend, I don't see the constitution as ambiguous at all. Many, and I am not implying you, want to see that ambiguity so that they can pass whatever law that they feel is for the greater good without having a constraining framework or historical contract impede them.

Ohh, thanks for doing something that the "warrior" wouldn't. That is..engage the argument and offer a somewhat reasoned debate. Although I cannot agree, your thoughts and efforts are appreciated and respected. :)

The trite statements of fact bore the hell out of me.


:rockon:

[Ralonzo]

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/03/matthew-lesko.jpg

"I'll knock you up so you can getcha free money!"

[Mouldsie]

its magic money that noone actually has to pay for....


free money for da kids!!!

what could be the downside?

we'd just print more of it

[two4trippn]

At least its not Gore's lock box idea. Is it $5K at birth or at maturity - major difference.
In the grand scheme of things, $5,000 a kid is nothing AT maturity IF its issued from a tax credit at birth and the Government gets the 18 years of interest. If its an incentive met by reaching certain GPA, proper attendance and participation, there would still be an amount of defunct funds not used.
We subsidise way too many minorities or foreign import students to date so why not offer something for our own. How many more Habib or Nyugen students can we afford versus Scott Levin's kids?

Stop fighting war to keep oil buddies (KBR) rich and invest into our youth couldn't be a bad step into improving our future.

[Ralonzo]

How many more Habib or Nyugen students can we afford versus Scott Levin's kids?

Isn't Scott an exchange student from Israel?

Stop fighting war to keep oil buddies (KBR) rich and invest into our youth couldn't be a bad step into improving our future.

Non-sequitur. Throw all the money you want at education (and we have been - look at DC) and it solves nothing. An outcome-based curricula has only one sure outcome - failure. In top-down governance the goal is a general levelling, and as in landscape the path of least resistance is to shave down the top rather than build up the bottom.

[kybillsfan]

I'll back the Warrior up on this one.

In my view, and I'm not a lawyer, the Constitution is a framework and sets parameters which all other laws must adhere to.

It doesn't violate the framework to pass such a law.

Of course, as with Roe vs Wade, some hotbed issues end up in the Court because lilly livered politicians won't legislate because it might hurt their careers to take one side or the other. They leave it up to the Court to make a decision because the SC judges don't have to answer to the voting public.

The thing is, Supreme Court justices are like the rest of us and subject to their own prejudices and concerns. The framework is subject to interpretation by these supposedly impartial human beings. "Original Intent" "The Greater Good" and "Public Welfare" are all things that are considered when making a ruling. I think alot of the Constitution is ambiguous. Justices may see things that aren't there, as do we.

Who are we, people not versed in the law and certainly not legal scholars, to say what is and what is not constitutional? It's just our own interpetation and not a very knowledgable one. At least the Court can judge with far more expertise than we can.
It does violate the constitution but that doesnt seem to matter these days. It is more burden on the taxpayer. The constitution doesnt have all the legal ease that most legal documents have these days that make them impossible to understand. We do have inalienable rights which are granted to us as free citizens and I can say that this does do damage to those. An increased tax burden turns into slavery to an extent. If I pay 40% in taxes then I am a 40% slave.

Bottom line is it doesnt take a man of brilliance to know what our founders had in mind. The people that have done damage to our constitution knew damn well it went against what this nation stands for yet they ignored it.

[kybillsfan]

we'd just print more of itExactly which in turn devalues all of everyone elses money. Why in the hell should someone be entitled to 5k just because they are born. Especially when it steals money from the pockets of others.

[pmoon6]

I often wonder what Robert Bork would have done on the Court.

In my view, he was and is a Constitutional scholar, but holds some views that are, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.

Too bad he was railroaded out of confirmation by the likes of Biden, Kennedy and their ilk.

All because they thought he would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

I wonder if Kennedy had to go through such a microscopic investigation of his life, he could even be confirmed as dogcatcher of Hyannisport.

Probably not. He's only qualified to make you a Tom Collins and tell you amusing stories about his brothers.

Just don't mention MJ.

[JLB]

He would be in prison if his name wasn't Kennedy.

[JLB]

I often wonder what Robert Bork would have done on the Court.

In my view, he was and is a Constitutional scholar, but holds some views that are, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.

Too bad he was railroaded out of confirmation by the likes of Biden, Kennedy and their ilk.

All because they thought he would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

I wonder if Kennedy had to go through such a microscopic investigation of his life, he could even be confirmed as dogcatcher of Hyannisport.

Probably not. He's only qualified to make you a Tom Collins and tell you amusing stories about his brothers.

Just don't mention MJ.

Did you support Robert Bork?

[pmoon6]

Did you support Robert Bork?Yes, but I thought that was evident from the post.

[35Pete]

Isn't Scott an exchange student from Israel?



Non-sequitur. Throw all the money you want at education (and we have been - look at DC) and it solves nothing. An outcome-based curricula has only one sure outcome - failure. In top-down governance the goal is a general levelling, and as in landscape the path of least resistance is to shave down the top rather than build up the bottom.

Ralonzo. You said it so perfectly. I think I understand why people continue to support the same tired and failed ideas.

1. Centralization leads to the illusion that the entire "system" is addressed in one fell swoop.
2. Government spending leads certain voters to increase their self-esteem because they support spending tax money on an issue that they feel is significant. The fact that "we at least did something" is almost invariably a sufficient enough positive reward. In fact, positive to the point where the same stupidity is often mindlessly repeated.
3. Often people are strongly influenced by party propaganda. And you will often see the parties (particularly the democratic one) argue that the "situation would be much worse" if we didn't already spend all this money on this issue. People buy that unsubstantiated and imposible to prove negative line all the time.
4. More people have a vested interest in getting a piece of the spoils than you might think. In other words, they want in on the disposition of the pillage.
5. When the expensive solution not only fails but exascerbates the problem, the same folks that supported the garbage now let their egos get in the way of doing what's right. So what they'll do is that they'd rather "move the goal posts" then admit they are wrong.

[JLB]

Yes, but I thought that was evident from the post.

:rockon:

Yes it was clear and your correct to say he is a Constitutional scholar.

I couldn't believe the ****ing he got.

Kennedy is a shame period.

[Ralonzo]

Wow, has the goatee'd 35Pete returned to his alternate universe? :)

[mighty peace warrior]

L

Ohh, thanks for doing something that the "warrior" wouldn't. That is..engage the argument and offer a somewhat reasoned debate. Although I cannot agree, your thoughts and efforts are appreciated and respected. :)

The trite statements of fact bore the hell out of me.

hypocrite, read your own posts "expert"

I have no interest in "debating" with someone who has already made up their mind, especially one who doesn't seem to get the premise of the constitution. "reasoned argument" like the ones you have posted in this thread? roflmao

a boob who uses big words is still a boob

[mighty peace warrior]

I often wonder what Robert Bork would have done on the Court.

In my view, he was and is a Constitutional scholar, but holds some views that are, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.

Too bad he was railroaded out of confirmation by the likes of Biden, Kennedy and their ilk.

All because they thought he would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

I wonder if Kennedy had to go through such a microscopic investigation of his life, he could even be confirmed as dogcatcher of Hyannisport.

Probably not. He's only qualified to make you a Tom Collins and tell you amusing stories about his brothers.

Just don't mention MJ.


a classic example of using the smokescreen that is abortion. that so many decisions in this country are made based on a persons belief in this topic is a problem that gets glossed over.

[mighty peace warrior]

Well that may be true the founders abhorred the creation of standing armies fearing that our nation might turn into the embarrassing imperialistic shit hole that it is today. So you need to also consider the spirit IN ADDITION to the letter of the document. Not either or..

good intelligent debate...

[mighty peace warrior]

The argument for "common defense" is just as specious as "promote the common welfare".

And any non-idiotic, non-moron has read Federalist Paper #44 (James Madison, address to State of New York, I believe) which clearly demonstrates the folly of "general welfare" as a license for imperial Washington to do "whatever the **** it wanted".

opinion laced with insults for those who may not see things one way AKA....

more intelligent discourse

[mighty peace warrior]

Uppy. Don't get all selective about the constitution. You either defend it all or pipe down and leave it to me.

Chimp. Paying for books is not a constitutional role of government. I sure as hell want DECENTRALIZATION of schools ASAP. Centralization has accomplished what now?

look at me I am an expert because i say so!

[35Pete]

look at me I am an expert because i say so!

Jesus man. You sound like a schoolyard kid tossing out bomblets cause you're having a hissy fit. What's crawling up your neck today?

You're just going to have to accept the reality that I have an opinion on many subjects. In fact, a lot of people here have an opinion on many subjects.

Get over yourself bro.

[notacon]

Where in the Constitution does it say the goverment should pay for schools

Where in the Constitution does it say they can't.

Actually...it IS in the Constitution...right there in Article I, Section I...

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Whatever specific power that is not entrusted to the federal government goes to the states.

it is actually the states that pay the bulk of the budget of schools.

In any event...the original question is stupid. The Constitution does not specifically have to state what trhey can do and not do. They have the right to legislate...almost anything they want.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the government should pay farm subsidies?

[mighty peace warrior]

J

Get over yourself bro.
right back at you.

sorry when people insult me i don't just roll over


you are hardly an expert except perhaps at being a mosquito.

[notacon]

Uppy. Don't get all selective about the constitution. You either defend it all or pipe down and leave it to me.

Chimp. Paying for books is not a constitutional role of government. I sure as hell want DECENTRALIZATION of schools ASAP. Centralization has accomplished what now?

WHAT "centralization" of schools are you talking about.

Schools are about the LEAST centralized entity in the whole country. School boards run schools and there are several school boards within even some localities...absolutely several within every county...not to mention the literal hundreds in each state.

In my opinion a little centralization would go a long way to HELPING schools to operate more efficiently.

[mighty peace warrior]

You're just going to have to accept the reality that I have an opinion on many subjects. In fact, a lot of people here have an opinion on many subjects.



and you will have to accept the reality that your opinion is just that...an opinion. generally based on bs, but an opinion

[mighty peace warrior]

Where in the Constitution does it say they can't.

Actually...it IS in the Constitution...right there in Article I, Section I...

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."



its almost as if they thought there would be more laws after the constituion..


but pete says the constitution is the be all end all, if that is true why would they make such a provision right in the beginning?

[notacon]

I often wonder what Robert Bork would have done on the Court.

In my view, he was and is a Constitutional scholar, but holds some views that are, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.

Too bad he was railroaded out of confirmation by the likes of Biden, Kennedy and their ilk.

All because they thought he would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

I wonder if Kennedy had to go through such a microscopic investigation of his life, he could even be confirmed as dogcatcher of Hyannisport.

Probably not. He's only qualified to make you a Tom Collins and tell you amusing stories about his brothers.

Just don't mention MJ.

Bork was not "railroaded" out of anything.

He fulfilled his duty and went before the Senate for confirmation. He told everyone what he would do if he went on to the court. The Senate voted him down.

All quite legitimate. And good for the country as far as I am concerned.

[notacon]

its almost as if they thought there would be more laws after the constituion..


but pete says the constitution is the be all end all, if that is true why would they make such a provision right in the beginning?

:rofl: More Laws?!?!? What are you a heretic?!?!? :D

Of course the framers knew what they were doing. This is a country of laws..and those laws change as the people's attitudes change.

THAT is why we have elections.

When you think seriously about it the Constitution is really a brilliant set of rules to govern a nation.

[pmoon6]

Bork was not "railroaded" out of anything.

He fulfilled his duty and went before the Senate for confirmation. He told everyone what he would do if he went on to the court. The Senate voted him down.

All quite legitimate. And good for the country as far as I am concerned.That's pretty funny, my friend.

I guess Teddy taking out a full page ad denouncing Bork in the Washington Post the day after he was nominated was just part of the confirmation process, eh?

I guess Kennedy was just being impartial and legitimate. He wouldn't stoop to trying to influence his fellow Senators with such an ad.

Just like he wouldn't stoop to using the political machinery in Massachusetts to get out of a negligent homicide charge.

Bork was not confirmed because he was a conservative, pure and simple. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed in 5 minutes and hardly examined at all.

I guess that was for the good of country too.

[JLB]

That's pretty funny, my friend.

I guess Teddy taking out a full page ad denouncing Bork in the Washington Post the day after he was nominated was just part of the confirmation process, eh?

I guess Kennedy was just being impartial and legitimate. He wouldn't stoop to trying to influence his fellow Senators with such an ad.

Just like he wouldn't stoop to using the political machinery in Massachusetts to get out of a negligent homicide charge.

Bork was not confirmed because he was a conservative, pure and simple. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed in 5 minutes and hardly examined at all.

I guess that was for the good of country too.

bump

[35Pete]

its almost as if they thought there would be more laws after the constituion..


but pete says the constitution is the be all end all, if that is true why would they make such a provision right in the beginning?

You ought to read the ****ing thing sometime. Then you'll get the context of that statement.

Of course they expected new laws. But a.) with narrow scope, and b.) within the specific enumerations of the constitution.

[35Pete]

:rofl: More Laws?!?!? What are you a heretic?!?!? :D

Of course the framers knew what they were doing. This is a country of laws..and those laws change as the people's attitudes change.

THAT is why we have elections.

When you think seriously about it the Constitution is really a brilliant set of rules to govern a nation.

Indeed it is. And when you learn about the constitution you'll understand the meaning of what you just said.

[notacon]

That's pretty funny, my friend.

I guess Teddy taking out a full page ad denouncing Bork in the Washington Post the day after he was nominated was just part of the confirmation process, eh?

I guess Kennedy was just being impartial and legitimate. He wouldn't stoop to trying to influence his fellow Senators with such an ad.

Just like he wouldn't stoop to using the political machinery in Massachusetts to get out of a negligent homicide charge.

Bork was not confirmed because he was a conservative, pure and simple. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed in 5 minutes and hardly examined at all.

I guess that was for the good of country too.

Oh come 'on buddy. Are you afraid of good old politics?!?!

Kennedy did not do ANYTHING unethical or outside the prerogatives of a US citizen or US Senator. I don't know anything about an ad but I do remember his speech on the Senate floor the day Bork was nominated.

Kennedy was right on the money...Bork's world is one that was stuck in the 18th century.

Bork's biggest problem was that in his hearings he told the world EXACTLY how he was going to try and send us back 200 years.

He lost the Senate vote...not because of Democrats, but Republicans...six of them voting against.

Don't try and dish out the crap that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had an easy time so it was just a vendetta against conservative nominees.

Anton Scalia won his confirmation with a 98-0 vote. And he has turned out to be the most radically conservative member on the court in decades.

By the way...what exactly do you consider "impartial and legitimate" political discourse.

A group financed by right wing nuts that dig up old soldiers, that never served with John Kerry, that lie about him at every turn.

How about at the 2004 Republican convention where some patriotic soul actually paid gobs of money to denigrate every single veteran that has EVER been wounded in combat by turning that most sacred medal...the Purple Heart...into a joke by making it a band-aid...all in an effort to attack Kerry's strength...that he was a Vietnam war HERO while Bush was getting drunk stateside...never finishing his obligation to the guard.

Of do you consider "legitimate" another right wing financed slime machine effort called the "Arkansas Project" specifically designed to dig up false "dirt" on a popular sitting president in order to impeach him?

Or how about the members of the Republican House delegation...after they lost seats in the 1996 election and knowing they would NEVER get enough votes to impeach Clinton after January 1997...convene a special lame duck session of the house just to vote articles of impeachment before they lost the ability to get enough votes. Tom DeLay, almost single handedly made sure that wavering GOP members would vote to impeach by showing them "evidence" that never made it into the House hearings...LIES and fabrications dug up by that very same GOP smear effort...the "Arkansas Project".

And your panties are getting in a bunch over an ad in a newspaper?!?!

[notacon]

Indeed it is. And when you learn about the constitution you'll understand the meaning of what you just said.

I have read every the Constitution several times.

I not only have studied it but I understand it completely.

[pmoon6]

Oh come 'on buddy. Are you afraid of good old politics?!?!

Kennedy did not do ANYTHING unethical or outside the prerogatives of a US citizen or US Senator. I don't know anything about an ad but I do remember his speech on the Senate floor the day Bork was nominated.

Kennedy was right on the money...Bork's world is one that was stuck in the 18th century.

Bork's biggest problem was that in his hearings he told the world EXACTLY how he was going to try and send us back 200 years.

He lost the Senate vote...not because of Democrats, but Republicans...six of them voting against.

Don't try and dish out the crap that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had an easy time so it was just a vendetta against conservative nominees.

Anton Scalia won his confirmation with a 98-0 vote. And he has turned out to be the most radically conservative member on the court in decades.

By the way...what exactly do you consider "impartial and legitimate" political discourse.

A group financed by right wing nuts that dig up old soldiers, that never served with John Kerry, that lie about him at every turn.

How about at the 2004 Republican convention where some patriotic soul actually paid gobs of money to denigrate every single veteran that has EVER been wounded in combat by turning that most sacred medal...the Purple Heart...into a joke by making it a band-aid...all in an effort to attack Kerry's strength...that he was a Vietnam war HERO while Bush was getting drunk stateside...never finishing his obligation to the guard.

Of do you consider "legitimate" another right wing financed slime machine effort called the "Arkansas Project" specifically designed to dig up false "dirt" on a popular sitting president in order to impeach him?

Or how about the members of the Republican House delegation...after they lost seats in the 1996 election and knowing they would NEVER get enough votes to impeach Clinton after January 1997...convene a special lame duck session of the house just to vote articles of impeachment before they lost the ability to get enough votes. Tom DeLay, almost single handedly made sure that wavering GOP members would vote to impeach by showing them "evidence" that never made it into the House hearings...LIES and fabrications dug up by that very same GOP smear effort...the "Arkansas Project".

And your panties are getting in a bunch over an ad in a newspaper?!?!I don't wear panties.

Boxer briefs.:D

[notacon]

I don't wear panties.

Boxer briefs.:D

You forgot about that picture I have. :D

[pmoon6]

You forgot about that picture I have. :D:rofl:

Zing.

[notacon]

:rofl:

Zing.

I'll sell it to you for your first grandchild's $5000 from Hilary! :D :D

[pmoon6]

I think La Femme Clinton may have a hard time getting that one passed.

[notacon]

I think La Femme Clinton may have a hard time getting that one passed.

"La Femme"?!?!?! Really. First hit when you search that word is...

La Femme Prom Dress (http://www.lafemmefashion.com/)

I like Hilary's politics...but I could never picture in THAT dress.

In any event...you are right. $5000 per kid will never fly...nor should it.

[JLB]

Im still waiting for all the jobs she promised WNY

She hasn't really delivered on that one and I expect she never will.