Print

[SMASH]

And Health Care is enumerated where in the US Constitution?

Um, NO FREAKING WHERE!

Thanks for participating.

[ducksoup]

And Health Care is enumerated where in the US Constitution?

Um, NO FREAKING WHERE!

Thanks for participating.

Along with a big pile of other stuff that has existed for decades.  But, I am sure you hate all of that too.

Think about it, yeah the Constitution says a strong military, but no where does it say we need enough nukes to blow up the world 5290 times, or to have had rockets that went to the moon (yeah, a conspiracy theory.. ugg).  I bet there is a clause in the original Constitution about the internet too!

[Will Sweat]

Along with a big pile of other stuff that has existed for decades.  But, I am sure you hate all of that too.

Think about it, yeah the Constitution says a strong military, but no where does it say we need enough nukes to blow up the world 5290 times, or to have had rockets that went to the moon (yeah, a conspiracy theory.. ugg).  I bet there is a clause in the original Constitution about the internet too!

Duck -

You and SMASH are both correct that many things have been extended from the Constitution and that is something that frustrates me.  What I wish is that if a political party wishes to change or add to the consituation that they would do it in the proper manner by adding an amendment to the constitution instead of continually allowing the Judiciary to "interpet" law.  Add clarity - pass law (which is what the Legislative Branch is suppose to do) and then move forward from there. 

I believe there is a reason this is not being done. 

[jbs49238]

Duck -

You and SMASH are both correct that many things have been extended from the Constitution and that is something that frustrates me.  What I wish is that if a political party wishes to change or add to the consituation that they would do it in the proper manner by adding an amendment to the constitution instead of continually allowing the Judiciary to "interpet" law.  Add clarity - pass law (which is what the Legislative Branch is suppose to do) and then move forward from there. 

I believe there is a reason this is not being done. 

Because it is difficult to do the right way.  It is much easier to gain power, appoint the right people to the right places then trample the Constitution through the back door, just as every Administration has done in my lifetime.

[SMASH]

Along with a big pile of other stuff that has existed for decades.  But, I am sure you hate all of that too.

Think about it, yeah the Constitution says a strong military, but no where does it say we need enough nukes to blow up the world 5290 times, or to have had rockets that went to the moon (yeah, a conspiracy theory.. ugg).  I bet there is a clause in the original Constitution about the internet too!

Where does the Constitution say anything about a strong military?

Nukes to blow up the world?
Might want to quiz the folks at that "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower warned us all about regarding that?

Rockets went to the moon...and...so...Um?
What did we get from that?
I know little old ladies are being arrested at Denny's for trying to sell moon rocks!
And...Today NASA unplugged the last mainframe they had going and now we ride our asses in RUSSIAN Rockets!
Hows that workin' for ya?

The internet in the Constitution?
Umm, yeah, free speech and a free press?
That 1st Amendment thing.

[SMASH]

Duck -

You and SMASH are both correct that many things have been extended from the Constitution and that is something that frustrates me.  What I wish is that if a political party wishes to change or add to the consituation that they would do it in the proper manner by adding an amendment to the constitution instead of continually allowing the Judiciary to "interpet" law.

The judicary is there to interpet the Law but only to the extent it is in compliance with the Constitution, period. I get what you are driving at. They ARE legislating from the bench. And, we let them. The judicary is supposed to be the weakest of our three branches of government. WE have allowed them through ignorance to be the "be all end all" of legislation, that is BS.

  Add clarity - pass law (which is what the Legislative Branch is suppose to do) and then move forward from there. 

I believe there is a reason this is not being done.

I do too! However, I believe my reasons are most likely more heinous that yours. That doesn't mean we can't work together to redirect the path our government is currently on before this stuff gets out of hand.  

[SMASH]

Because it is difficult to do the right way.  It is much easier to gain power, appoint the right people to the right places then trample the Constitution through the back door, just as every Administration has done in my lifetime.

Who are the right people in the right places?

[Frenchfry]

Will GOP Support Catholics on Unemployment Benefits?
Republicans claim to support Catholics in light of the recent contraception coverage issue but will they support the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which is calling for an extension of unemployment benefits?

Well it appears the answer is yes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/how-parts-of-150-billion-payroll-tax-cut-unemployment-insurance-package-are-paid-for/2012/02/16/gIQAEGbNIR_story.html

And in keeping with the subject "We're All But Done"

CNN poll: Republicans losing fire for election
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/enthusiasm-gap-republicans-presidential-election-/1?csp=34news

[John Kopke]

In early 2005 George W. Bush decided to fumble and bumble his way in promoting partial privatization of SS as a positive way to reform it. Congressman Dingell was quick to hit back. We had nothing to fear.

Michigan House Democrats March 10, 2005 "Your Social Security is actuarially sound until 2052," Dingell said. "There is no crisis.”

“There is no crisis.”

Well a little over 6 years have past since CD made that statement. He told us then the SS program was “actuarially sound” for the next 47 years. Don’t worry be happy. Now that six years have past it stands to reason we would still have 41 years left. Right? “Actuarially Sound.“ Yet now we are told the year is 2033. If CD had used 2033 as the date back in 2005 he’d have said 28 years, not 47.  19 years shrinkage in 6 years. If this trend continues we could be talking “actuarially sound” until 2018.     

[sammy]

Have no fear; The geniuses we've elected will find a way to keep it " actuarialy sound" until they no longer want to run for office. In the case of Mr. Dingell, I predict that will be about ten years after he meets his maker! Wait, Debbie is way younger than he is, so the string may just play out forever!

[John Kopke]

Sammy I expect they'll keep on printing. They''ll give the SS folks a cost of living increase of 2 1/2 percent when real inflation is 7 percent. Works out just fine.

[sammy]

Sammy I expect they'll keep on printing. They''ll give the SS folks a cost of living increase of 2 1/2 percent when real inflation is 7 percent. Works out just fine.

Remember, Gas and food don't count in the counting!

[John Kopke]

Remember, Gas and food don't count in the counting!

I wasn't necessarily counting them. Inflation ain't got good started yet. Yet.

[sammy]

I wasn't necessarily counting them. Inflation ain't got good started yet. Yet.

You are so lost. Are you somehow hooked up with Smash and Jl?

[John Kopke]

You are so lost. Are you somehow hooked up with Smash and Jl?

Sammy,
Better to leave them out of this. When FB and Duck get wind of my post the slime will be ugly. It is up to Smash and Jl to decide whether they want to weigh in, or not.