I have no intention of denying anyone in another country anything or telling them what to do with their bodies. We just said we didn''t want OUR tax money paying for it.
The issue with this statement is that money would have been given to medical aid groups if they were opposed to performing abortions. For poor women in 3rd world countries, these aid groups are their only chance to get medical treatment.
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it "young man"..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, "living it" didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
Not no reason at all, Karen. Haven''t you heard? They hate us because we''re free. Duh.Date: 1/25/2009 3:26:59 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it ''young man''..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, ''living it'' didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
And yeah, that bit about forgetting all about how we played kingmaker to the Shah, and then when the whole thing blew up in our faces, got in bed with our best buddy Sodamn Insane, and barely blinked while they used chemical weapons on Iranians is pretty amazing. Talk about cherry picking to lay the whole thing at Carter''s feet. Of course those Iranians now, whatever they think is just a load of crap because we all know that all people in the middle east are tribal Muslim extremists who can''t think logically and hate us for absolutely no reason at all.
And yeah, what about what went before Carter, and after Carter? No impact at all on the current situation.
Date: 1/25/2009 3:26:59 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it ''young man''..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, ''living it'' didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
And yeah, that bit about forgetting all about how we played kingmaker to the Shah, and then when the whole thing blew up in our faces, got in bed with our best buddy Sodamn Insane, and barely blinked while they used chemical weapons on Iranians is pretty amazing. Talk about cherry picking to lay the whole thing at Carter''s feet. Of course those Iranians now, whatever they think is just a load of crap because we all know that all people in the middle east are tribal Muslim extremists who can''t think logically and hate us for absolutely no reason at all.
Wishful, I''m responding to this specifically because you are interested in Constitutional Law and since I support the Constitution Party, it seemed relevant to bring up the constitionality here.
and somehow tie funding abortions as being legally taxed under the "general Welfare" portion of this clause--which I think is such a massive stretch that I hate to even use it as a hypothetical example--it would STILL be limited to the United States. I understand the constitutional argument against taxes, and I am indeed interested in it, NewEnglandLady. Thanks for the overview. I didn''t mean to actually spark a debate about the nature of taxes in the US with my comment, but I do have to say that if it were a viable constitutional argument it not only would have been argued, but the strict constructionist US Supreme Court would have abolished the taxes and deemed them unconstitutional. Now, I loathe the SCOTUS, but they are very, very likely to come down on your side on this issue if your argument is sound. I don''t have ready-made constitutional arguments in response to this one; I deal mostly in civil liberties at the moment, but I''m guessing smart minds on both sides have weighed in, and I''ll definitely keep my eye out for articles on the subject.Date: 1/25/2009 4:15:33 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Wishful, I''m responding to this specifically because you are interested in Constitutional Law and since I support the Constitution Party, it seemed relevant to bring up the constitionality here.
I''m biased because I believe 99% of all federal taxes are blatently unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment, but even if you were to take a very, very loose interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Again, I don''t want to come of as snarky or combative...I just know that we both are interested the Constitution (even if from different sides) and I''d like to know what argument there is that this law is constitutional.
Date: 1/25/2009 3:26:59 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it ''young man''..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, ''living it'' didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
And yeah, that bit about forgetting all about how we played kingmaker to the Shah, and then when the whole thing blew up in our faces, got in bed with our best buddy Sodamn Insane, and barely blinked while they used chemical weapons on Iranians is pretty amazing. Talk about cherry picking to lay the whole thing at Carter''s feet. Of course those Iranians now, whatever they think is just a load of crap because we all know that all people in the middle east are tribal Muslim extremists who can''t think logically and hate us for absolutely no reason at all.
What we all fail to realize, the big elephant in the room, is that we -- the U.S. and other stable, wealthier governments and societies -- are NOT responsible for seeing to it that ANYONE OUTSIDE OF OUR BORDERS RECEIVES SQUAT. Whatever we choose to cough up for assistance in daily living needs in the third world should be received, not with the usual disdain and grumbings of their governments and their peoples, but as a considerate, compassionate, gift for the use of its intended purpose -- the improvement in the basics to sustain life. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE, AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE RESPONSIBLE, FOR THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS, THEIR LACK OF MEDICAL CARE, THEIR LACK OF EDUCATION, THEIR LACK OF CLEAN WATER OR AIR, OR THEIR GENERAL DISREGARD FOR THEIR OWN CITIZENS AS THEY BASICALLY RAPE AND PILAGE THEIR WAY THROUGH THEIR OWN COUNTRIES. Let them pay for their own abortions. We''ll concede the food in their mouths, the clothes on their backs, and often, the roofs over their heads. We aren''t without compassion. We just don''t feel like throwing money down a rathole to begin with, let alone one we have a moral squabble with.
I knew I could draw you out of ''lurking''. I always can.Date: 1/25/2009 3:26:59 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it ''young man''..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, ''living it'' didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
And yeah, that bit about forgetting all about how we played kingmaker to the Shah, and then when the whole thing blew up in our faces, got in bed with our best buddy Sodamn Insane, and barely blinked while they used chemical weapons on Iranians is pretty amazing. Talk about cherry picking to lay the whole thing at Carter''s feet. Of course those Iranians now, whatever they think is just a load of crap because we all know that all people in the middle east are tribal Muslim extremists who can''t think logically and hate us for absolutely no reason at all.
What can I say? I''m a sucker for watching someone hang themselves with their own rope.Date: 1/25/2009 6:58:26 PM
Author: HollyS
I knew I could draw you out of ''lurking''. I always can.Date: 1/25/2009 3:26:59 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO!! Such a danger to assume anything from one''s avatar isn''t it ''young man''..... Whew! (wiping eyes) Right now I big ol'' puffy heart you klewis! Holly does love to fancy herself the only one who is OLD enough to know anything because she''s LIVED it. Give me a break. Age is no guarantee of anything. I have a friend who is 50 and has never read a single book since college. I can assure you, ''living it'' didn''t impact him at ALL. Being alive at the time hardly makes one an expert on anything. By that logic, because I was 8 blocks from the Murraugh building in ''95 and felt the blast and saw the first puff of white smoke, I''M an expert on all things ''terrorist''.
And yeah, that bit about forgetting all about how we played kingmaker to the Shah, and then when the whole thing blew up in our faces, got in bed with our best buddy Sodamn Insane, and barely blinked while they used chemical weapons on Iranians is pretty amazing. Talk about cherry picking to lay the whole thing at Carter''s feet. Of course those Iranians now, whatever they think is just a load of crap because we all know that all people in the middle east are tribal Muslim extremists who can''t think logically and hate us for absolutely no reason at all.
I definitely agree with you, Wishful, and it''s frustrating that they don''t defend the Constitution objectively. They only get it right half of the time, the other half they''re too clouded in their religious beliefs to keep from being discriminatory.Date: 1/25/2009 4:36:41 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
I understand the constitutional argument against taxes, and I am indeed interested in it, NewEnglandLady. Thanks for the overview. I didn''t mean to actually spark a debate about the nature of taxes in the US with my comment, but I do have to say that if it were a viable constitutional argument it not only would have been argued, but the strict constructionist US Supreme Court would have abolished the taxes and deemed them unconstitutional. Now, I loathe the SCOTUS, but they are very, very likely to come down on your side on this issue if your argument is sound. I don''t have ready-made constitutional arguments in response to this one; I deal mostly in civil liberties at the moment, but I''m guessing smart minds on both sides have weighed in, and I''ll definitely keep my eye out for articles on the subject.Date: 1/25/2009 4:15:33 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Wishful, I''m responding to this specifically because you are interested in Constitutional Law and since I support the Constitution Party, it seemed relevant to bring up the constitionality here.
I''m biased because I believe 99% of all federal taxes are blatently unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment, but even if you were to take a very, very loose interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Again, I don''t want to come of as snarky or combative...I just know that we both are interested the Constitution (even if from different sides) and I''d like to know what argument there is that this law is constitutional.
Only slightly off-topic, I also would caution you in believing that the ''Constitution Party'' actually represents the interests of the US Constitution in full. A quick overview of their key issues shows me that they''re advocating blatantly unconstitutional principles on at least one issue. Not to imply that you''re particularly gullible or anything of the sort, but if a party is going to market itself to people who are interested in constitutional issues [like myself] they probably should try not to alienate them with ridiculous religious arguments that have nothing to do with the constitution and actually violate it. It''s offensive not only for its disregard for constitutional issues, but for its apparent lack of respect for the intellect of the people who follow their party platform, who really ought to be familiar enough with constitutional issues to notice that some of the positions are bullsh*t. /rant
I''d rather deal in reality than in books. BTW, have you ever read any of the books that many of these intelligent women on here espouse? You are usually only good for one line zingers, and you never really contribute anything other than that. At least I and others put ourselves out there and actually debate stuff here.
Sorry to quote the whole thing, but I just wanted to thank you. I think you might be the only person I have ever "known" who was a Constitution Party supporter and actually noticed that their platform is a little too often shrouded in religion. I really like when people are fully aware of what they''re supporting. I hope you don''t think that sounds condescending, because you''re obviously very intelligent, so I am not surprised that you do know... it just seems too rare. I''m glad you responded nicely because I realized after I''d posted that I don''t have the energy to back up the point I was pretty clearly making in my little rant about them. Point #3 is not up for debate, but I am more than happy and honestly intrigued to hear any and all constitutional arguments regarding things that are up for debate.Date: 1/25/2009 7:49:37 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Date: 1/25/2009 4:36:41 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
Date: 1/25/2009 4:15:33 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Wishful, I''m responding to this specifically because you are interested in Constitutional Law and since I support the Constitution Party, it seemed relevant to bring up the constitionality here.
I''m biased because I believe 99% of all federal taxes are blatently unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment, but even if you were to take a very, very loose interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Again, I don''t want to come of as snarky or combative...I just know that we both are interested the Constitution (even if from different sides) and I''d like to know what argument there is that this law is constitutional.
I understand the constitutional argument against taxes, and I am indeed interested in it, NewEnglandLady. Thanks for the overview. I didn''t mean to actually spark a debate about the nature of taxes in the US with my comment, but I do have to say that if it were a viable constitutional argument it not only would have been argued, but the strict constructionist US Supreme Court would have abolished the taxes and deemed them unconstitutional. Now, I loathe the SCOTUS, but they are very, very likely to come down on your side on this issue if your argument is sound. I don''t have ready-made constitutional arguments in response to this one; I deal mostly in civil liberties at the moment, but I''m guessing smart minds on both sides have weighed in, and I''ll definitely keep my eye out for articles on the subject.
Only slightly off-topic, I also would caution you in believing that the ''Constitution Party'' actually represents the interests of the US Constitution in full. A quick overview of their key issues shows me that they''re advocating blatantly unconstitutional principles on at least one issue. Not to imply that you''re particularly gullible or anything of the sort, but if a party is going to market itself to people who are interested in constitutional issues [like myself] they probably should try not to alienate them with ridiculous religious arguments that have nothing to do with the constitution and actually violate it. It''s offensive not only for its disregard for constitutional issues, but for its apparent lack of respect for the intellect of the people who follow their party platform, who really ought to be familiar enough with constitutional issues to notice that some of the positions are bullsh*t. /rant
I definitely agree with you, Wishful, and it''s frustrating that they don''t defend the Constitution objectively. They only get it right half of the time, the other half they''re too clouded in their religious beliefs to keep from being discriminatory.
Anyway, I always enjoy your insight, Wishful! Thanks for responding!
300x240.png)
