If you thought things were going really bad for Obama, you were right. But, apparently it’s a lot worse. Even Democratic pollsters aren’t able to hide the truth in the numbers. They see that Obama’s candidacy is in horrid shape.
President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.
“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.
Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.
See you next November, Barry!
Blogs For Victory 
9% official unemployment, closer to 20% in reality
trillion dollar deficits
wars, wars and more wars still going on
economy in a shambles
students being pepper sprayed and beaten on California campuses
GITMO still open
states rights routinely trampled
fast and the furious gun running
Obamacare going to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional
HOW on earth can the GOP possibly lose in November?
Romney 2012!!
You predicted that the Illini would go undefeated this year didn’t you? Bardolf please, No more predictions! 😛
I don’t think I predicted the Illini to go undefeated. Why don’t you check through the archives about 5-6 weeks ago when they were 6-0! I think I said something about life you should be enjoying there good start (sorry). You said something like if they went undefeated you’d drink a beer.
Actually, the election of a big gubmint president is now a forgone conclusion. Obama or Romney or Gingrich all luv em some taxpayer money. I’m planning the garden for the Spring and maybe buying a generator. I’m going to occupy my backyard in support of the movement.
Did you see the UC-Davis students get pepper sprayed? Not unexpected when the news media likes to see SWAT teams everywhere.
baldork
Did you see the UC-Davis students get pepper sprayed? Not unexpected when the news media likes to see SWAT teams everywhere.
Yeah pretty lame.
I prefer dogs and night sticks on dirtball commies.
Ok I stand corrected on the undefeated thing. I have lowered my expectations. If they win one more game this year I will drink that beer.
As far as the uc students getting pepper sprayed, what did they do to desreve it?
GMB
As far as the uc students getting pepper sprayed, what did they do to desreve it?
The right to “protest” is fully guaranteed.
but like every right comes responsibility.
Your right ends when you block my access to school, work, my home etc.and violate my right to access that which I paid for. in this case access to school.
They were warned and given a legal order to move out of the street they were blocking they refused and paid the price.
🙂
%$*&@(*^*@$!
The GOP
The POS
Obama pal Rezko gets 10 years in jail…
NEXT???????
Paging larry sinclair
But in his exclusive-to-subscribers report of November 14, 2011, investigate reporter Wayne Madsen wrote:
“The fallout from Penn State has universities and colleges across the nation checking their records for indications of child abuse and other sex scandals.
The Citadel is now embroiled in a scandal involving child sexual abuse by a summer camp counselor.
Past gay-oriented sex parties at Duke and the University of North Carolina involving then Duke basketball and football player Reggie Love reportedly cost him his job as President Obama’s ‘body man.’
De facto White House chief of staff Pete Rouse, upon hearing of potential problems regarding Love at Duke and UNC and on the heels of the scandal at Penn State, forced Love to leave the White House staff immediately, even over the objections of Obama.”
Again? Is there a prize or something for posting the same thing over and over again?
ABO 2012!!!
“President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”…
Let’s say that scenario did play out and the majority of voters, in their wisdom, elected the Republican candidate as POTUS and leader of the free world. What happens then?
I fully expect the usual non-answer accompanied by personal attacks on me and slurs thrown at my country but this is a serious question and I would be pleasantly surprised and very appreciative if a serious response were forthcoming.
Oh, get over yourself.
If you truly do not understand the difference between the actual POLITICS of the newly powerful radical Left in the United States, vs the newly aroused Conservative Movement, then no amount of further explanation here is going to do any good.
If a Republican were to be elected as President of the United States, it would be in the hope that he or she would head up a return to Constitutional principles of governing the nation. The degree of success in this endeavor is impossible to predict, as well as the length of time required to show real progress in this direction.
Surely you do not really believe that a crystal ball can give you a real answer to your silly question. Surely not. But then, it’s not a real question, is it?
c0
Oh, get over yourself.
Aaaaaaaamen
c0
IF you really want to EDUCATE your self and stop looking like a complete buffoon/idiot dont ask STUPID gotcha questions on a web site.
begin HERE
Communist Party USA Reveals: We’re Using the Democrat Party
associatedcontent.com ^ | December 3, 2010
Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things “the possibility that the communists may be able to “capture’ the Democratic Party entirely.” Read that slowly and carefully…”the possibility that the communists may be able to “capture’ the Democratic Party entirely.”
cO
then TRY reading these……….
One of the best insights into the nature and character of Obama comes in Jack Cashill’s “Deconstructing Obama.” If you think you know him, think again. This book really lays it out. In the world of Obama, nothing is as it seems.
Among the newest entries into the Obama library is “The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama” by Mondo Frazier. It validates all the fears about his illegitimacy and his deceit.
Do you want to know the full extent of Obama’s socialist connections? “Manchurian President” by Aaron Klein provides the exhaustive and documented links. Now on sale at a greatly reduced price.
And don’t forget the No. 1 bestseller that warned Americans of what was to come before Obama was elected – Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation.”
Read the book that started the myth. Obama may not have actually written it, as Cashill reveals, but it’s still an important work to understanding the real Obama and the myth: “Dreams From My Father.”
Do you want a quick and dirty look at the Obama eligibility issue – and one that’s entertaining and more than a little hilarious as well? Molotov Mitchell’s his name, and you’ve got to see his brief documentary called “I’m Not Crazy.” The DVD is on sale to move at $9.99.
Many thanks, Amazona & Neocon, for your enlightening and well researched responses. You never fail to inform & educate us politically naive individuals. Much appreciated.
Many thanks, Amazona & Neocon, for your enlightening and well researched responses. You never fail to inform & educate us politically naive individuals. Much appreciated.
Canadian Observer, I think you have “naive” confused with “Ignorant”.
…and smarmy
cO
I gave you five researched books to read that answers most of the reasons we do not support this man and it flies over your head like the space shuttle.
so you are either to Fn dumb to understand or you are a smarmy troll puke.
CO,
How’s your research on Shore Bank coming? Surely by now you’ve come up with SOMETHING.
spook
ROTFL
RetiredSpook November 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm #
CO,
How’s your research on Shore Bank coming?
————————————————————————-
You’ve been chewing on that bone for a long time, Spook. It taste pretty rancid by now. Luckily, unlike our Southern Neighbor, we Kommie Kanucks have banks that are well managed and well regulated.
cO
you would have NOTHING if it werent for the jobs we send up there, then buy the products back.
The thousands and thousands who pour across the border to work in our factories, refineries, and businesses daily.
OUR MILITARY…period
when are you leeches going to send say 70% of your GDP to us for the good life you mooches enjoy on our dime and blood?
You’ve been chewing on that bone for a long time, Spook. It taste pretty rancid by now.
It tasted pretty rancid when I first brought it up, CO. You were the one who asked ME to help you by pointing you in the right direction, because you couldn’t comprehend that the Leftists in our government could possibly be guilty of criminal wrong doing, particularly the kind of shenanigans that went on at Shore Bank. I obliged you in a very cordial and civil way.
“The thousands and thousands who pour across the border to work in our factories, refineries, and businesses daily.”…Neocon
—————————————————————————–
Haha, perhaps one of the first things your newly elected Republican President should do, Neocon, is to start building an electrified fence along your northern border to keep out those thousands and thousands of Canadian job seekers who pour into the U.S. to work in your factories, refineries and businesses daily.
With Canada’s unemployment rate at about 7.3% and the U.S. at 9%, I think there would be more of a chance finding a job here at home. Anyway, if there were jobs available, American employers would give preference to U.S. citizens over foreigners, wouldn’t they?
cO
is dat U ???? in the red shirt?
ROTFLMAO……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s
cO
Canadian job seekers
NOT “job seekers” MORON, Kanadian WORKERS!!!
DUHHHH
cO
Ahem
US Work Visas
US Work Permits and Visas for Canadians
Canadians are applying for US Work Visas and US Work Permits in record numbers. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), USA Visa procedures have been made easier for Canadians to work in the United States.
NAFTA has virtually opened the doors for Canadians and businesses seeking to enter the U.S markets. Large corporations, small businesses and professionals are seizing new opportunities to work in the United States.
Under NAFTA, Canadians can apply for the following us work visas on a fast track basis. Niren and Associates Immigration Lawyers in Toronto can assist you with your US Work Visas.
neocon1 November 21, 2011 at 7:28 pm #
cO
Ahem
US Work Visas
US Work Permits and Visas for Canadians
——————————————————————————
It just doesn’t seem right to be issuing work permits & visas to foreigners when there are so many American citizens who are unemployed.
cO
again
neocon1 November 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm #
cO
is dat U ???? in the red shirt?
Funny that despite all that,
“[Obama’s] campaign is doing far better at attracting grass-roots financial support this year than his Republican rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data. The sheer scale of small donations, totaling $56 million for Obama and his party, has surprised many Democratic strategists and fundraisers, who feared that a sour economy would make it difficult for Obama to raise money from disenchanted and cash-strapped voters…”
http://tinyurl.com/78dglxv
Dennis
The comments accompanying the article say everything. Obama is raising funding based on FEAR. There is no Hope and Change left. All the rhetoric about small donations and Obama is silly. Everyone knows that around July he’ll start flying to NY, Chicago, SF etc. to take big money from Wall Street and CBOT associates not $56 million in chump change. This is a Billion dollar election. The candidate bringing in the most $ will win. Most likely that will be Obama, maybe Romney.
dennistooge
since O has pumped TENS of BILLIONS into the unions, ACORN, and every other leftist,commie organization there is you are surprised by his large “donations”????
WOW dumb as a stick comes to mind.
PS
I always thought he made a deal with the devil (KKKlintoons) to get elected in the first place.
Keep an eye on the wicked witch.
A Bill Clinton pollster says Hillary should be president? Shocking. Bet Dick Morris will back it up, too.
bl0wz0
I believe there was a deal with the devil for 0 to have 1 term.
Bardolf, agreed. I’m viewing 2012 darkly, don’t like any of the presidential options now. However I view all the GOP candidates as worse choices for America’s future for a number of reasons (in some cases widely differing reasons, depending on the candidate). The main window of hope I have is that in the congressional contests there may be enough turnover to make a meaningful difference in the legislative bodies.
I have friends who are all over the place on Obama, but those who support him are anything but tepid. Many who don’t even like him are committed heart and soul to preventing another right wing extremist in the White House. And in this election cycle that’s all the GOP has (excluding Paul and Huntsman, who unfortunately aren’t likely to get much farther.)
dennistooge
However I view all the GOP candidates as worse choices for America’s future for a number of reasons
when the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch.
yet the “christian” wolf in sheep’s clothing chooses EVIL and darkness over reasonable sanity.
…ANOTHER right wing extremist in the White House….
And here we have yet another illustration of dennis’s abject ignorance of politics.
I always have to wonder just what it is that these people think they know, when they toss out stupid comments like this. No one with the slightest true understanding of the political philosophies of the left and right in this country could possibly blurt out such a totally stupid comment as stating that we have HAD a “right wing extremist in the White House”.
Gee, who would that have been? And what characteristics defined him as a “right wing extremist”? Certainly none that actually have any relationship to actual political philosophy.
But the RRL, such as dennis, scurry away from any effort to actually discuss the reality of politics. If dennis has even a hint of self-awareness he would realize he is a ‘left wing extremist’ but I have a feeling his political ignorance goes both ways, and he is oblivious to fact relating to either end of the political spectrum.
But go ahead, dennis. Define for us a “right wing extremist”. Does that mean someone who really REALLY REALLY believes in the Constitution?
Does that mean someone who really REALLY REALLY believes in the Constitution?
Ooooh the horror……..I tell ya.
BTW, neo, don’t hold your breath waiting for answers from denny. denny don’t do answers.
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
I’m guessing right wing extremist would be e.g. someone who REALLY REALLY believes in providing for the common Defence but not providing for the general Welfare. That is someone who starts lots of wars as nation building exercises, goes after individuals in Waco or via the patriot act, taking away civil liberties in the name of defense, maybe introduces a new branch of the govt. that hassles clearly innocent people at airports.. and then signs free trade agreements, gives bailouts to banks, runs up trillion dollar deficits via such wars and dubious tax cuts which will cripple future generations,.. i.e. not worrying about the general Welfare but about Wall Street.
So Clinton, Bush and Obama are extreme right wing while Nixon, Ford and Carter are left wing.
baldork
someone who REALLY REALLY believes in providing for the common Defence but not providing for the general Welfare.
general welfare is NOT socialism, “FREE” lunches, welfare checks, medical care, housing, transportation etc etc etc.
What I EARN IS MINE and MY FAMILIES….NOT some innercity dweller or illegal alien bum on the street or loser sitting on a porch drinking beer smoking cigarettes.
It IS NOT the job or RIGHT of the govt to take my money at the point of a gun and give it to someone else.
a safety net for deserving families? sure.
Taxes for infrastructure and national defense? you bet.
walleye
you seem to draw a blank lately….LOL
a safety net for deserving families? sure.
Taxes for infrastructure and national defense? you bet. — Neo
Now the problem becomes how to decide which families are “DESERVING” and what constitutes “INFRASTRUCTURE”.
If the government opened medical schools and opened public hospitals would and treated all citizens at these hospitals that would be infrastructure and promoting the general welfare.
That would mean a church could hire a pastor without having to worry about whether it can afford health care for his family. A private school could hire teachers with similar benefits to public school teachers. It would let companies focus on making products and not have to be health care providers.
It would let companies focus on making products and not have to be health care providers.
Dolf, could you give me a couple examples of companies that make a product and also provide their own healthcare facilities?
Spook
I meant guarantee that health care was available for their employees.
Did your company provide health insurance for its employees and if so how much paperwork was it for you to do?
dolf, are you sure you actually went to college? Did you study ANYTHING but obscure Shakespearean plays and math/physics? ‘Cause you are sure ignorant of the Constitution.
We’ve gone over this before but let’s do a little review, shall we?
The “general welfare” idea of the government taking care of people was put forth nearly as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution, so we have contemporaneous comments and clarifications from the guys who actually WROTE the document, explaining what they meant. That good enough for you?
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
-Thomas Jefferson
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
And so on. The topic has been covered, in depth, by far better thinkers than you, who actually UNDERSTAND the Constitution and its background, foundation and inspiration.
Yours is a tired old Lefty whine which serves only to illustrate your ignorance and silly need to find something to use as an insult.
The rest of your silly screed is just more illustration of basic political ignorance. Yes, dolf, we know your own definition of politics is one of identity and personality, but please stop pretending that this is related to reality. You go right on acting as if personalities, deeds, and party affiliation are really what define political philosophy, and we’ll go right on ignoring you. As you just keep getting sillier and sillier, that will be easier and easier. This latest spasm of sophomoric ‘political analysis’ is pretty embarrassing, even for you.
walleye
identity politics?
like Ochimpys security force?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIlVO7ucMHw
walleye
“Now the problem becomes how to decide which families are “DESERVING””
Neocon decides that based on skin color.
YOUR lying words not mine.
however Obombers committee “voting” in the above vid so maybe you are right maybe it is about skin color…these donks sure think so.
baldork
Now the problem becomes how to decide which families are “DESERVING” and what constitutes “INFRASTRUCTURE”.
only in the weasel words of lawyers and liberals.
roads, bridges, dams, fire and police.
deserving?
Those who lost JOBS, or are willing to work receive SHORT term assistance.
drunks, deadbeats, dopers, illegals, welfare queens with 10 kids from 10 men, need not apply.
“YOUR lying words not mine.”
You don’t say you decide based on skin color; you just do it.
There’s a round hole/square peg dynamic at play on your side of the aisle, Dennis, that you either don’t comprehend or simply choose to ignore. It’s at the center of many of your posts in as far as why you have chosen the socio-political path you have.
Excellent excerpt Spook, and it really drives to the heart of the divide. For whatever reason, our current crop of liberals are so emotionally stunted, they can’t critically and/or objectively think through issues
Bardolf, when did the constitution get rewritten? Lol, dumb question right. I will quote it for you. “Provide for the common defense” and “Promote the general welfare”.
Did you notice those two different words? Do you need definitions of these words? Can you explain the difference in these two words?
Just a few thoughts from some of our founders.
Thomas Jefferson observed:
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
And James Madison:
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
And Samuel Adams:
The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional.
How prophetic.
James Madison said, in a letter to James Robertson, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” James Madison also said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison laid out what he saw as constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper Number 45 where he explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”
Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
GMB
You are recalling the preamble. I am quoting article 1 section 8. The preamble is not enforced, article 1 section 8 is enforced.
“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;”
Their is a parallel structure- i.e. taxes are for A and B and C where A=Debts B=provide for the common Defence and C=provide for the general Welfare.
The question is what are the limits of the government taking taxes to provide for the general Welfare.
I really have to thank Amazona here. I haven’t read the constitution since high school and to be a good conservative should really have a better knowledge of what it says.
I still think you are misreading here. If the preamble is not a guide on how this country should be governed then our constitution is worthless. It can say what ever one thinks it can say. That is progressivism at it’s core.
Please respond to Mr. Madison’s argument. I for one think he hit it dead on. Why is he wrong?
Where does it end Bardolf? Where does your ability to open up my wallet end? Please list what is “general welfare” and what isn’t.
This should be interesting.
GMB
Amazona said “Does that mean someone who really REALLY REALLY believes in the Constitution?”
Your quotes are OUTSIDE the constitution and the preamble is a preamble. I quoted things INSIDE the constitution to which you have not replied.
James Madison was one of several men who jointly wrote the constitution. His opinion is important but not the only word. Clearly there must be limits to the governments reach so Madison is not wrong. The question is what is the limit of the reach. Again, why does the congress have the right to take money to build a highway system, or NASA and not e.g. a health care system?
Clearly health insurance is interstate commerce and the constitution does give congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
You are barking up the wrong tree. I do not believe the federal government should be taking money for any of those things. Why should they take money for things you favor?
Again I ask you the question. Where does your ability to open up my wallet end?
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/6645-solyndra-staff-get-13000-taa-federal-aid
Would this be considered providing for the general welfare Bardolf?
dolf, the argument for the federal government funding the interstate highway system and NASA is that both are connected to national defense.
You do know the history of the interstate highway system, don’t you? If not, I suggest that you look it up and learn that it was based, after WW 2, on Eisenhower’s observation that the autobahn provided a means for the military to move swiftly and efficiently across Germany, and that this would be an excellent addition to our own military readiness.
As for being involved in state and local highways and roads, it’s not in the Constitution, so I go back, as I always do, to the 10th Amendment. Once again, a very brief history lesson:
There were objections to the original Constitution, based on fears it didn’t do enough to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Remember, those who fought for our freedom and were trying to put together a new form of government were extremely suspicious of strong central governments.
So a compromise was reached: The original Constitution was supported and ratified, which outlined the enumerated DUTIES of the federal government, and then soon after that nine amendments were passed which dealt with what the federal government could NOT do. See the balance there? First the feds are told what they HAVE to do, then what they CAN’T do.
And then, just to tie it all up in a clear, concise and unambiguous package, they wrote the 10th Amendment, which says if it is not delegated to the feds, nor prohibited by any other part of the Constitution, then it is the responsibility OF THE STATE.
OR THE PEOPLE.
dolf, the argument for the federal government funding the interstate highway system and NASA is that both are connected to national defense.- Amy
You must know that many historians question the whole interstate as connected with defense narrative (in particular the auto industry magically got rid of many of the trams in cities when everyone got a car because of the highway system)
This is so gooper of you.
1. A government project which supports the general welfare but not enumerated specifically http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question3
Who built the Interstate System?
The Interstate System was built under the principles of the Federal-aid highway program, which was established in 1916. The Federal Government made Interstate Construction funds available to the State highway/transportation agencies, which built the Interstates.
becomes
2. Part of the national defense because you just have to believe the explanation given by a GOP politician.
When dealing with any law, intent is of primary importance. So when it is time to examine the wording of the Constitution, the best (and perhaps only) way to determine the actual INTENT of any wording is to examine the statements of those who wrote the document.
This is why the contemporaneous explanations of the actual writers of the Constitution are not only important, they should be the defining explanation of what was intended.
Not only that, the Preamble states intent, as part of the Constitution itself.
While Jefferson was in France while the Constitution was being framed, he was in constant contact with the writers, and certainly had input into the way it was written. He was one of the original Founding Fathers, and his political philosophy is not only quite clear, it is and was a part of the actual foundational documentation of the time.
So we have a written Preamble, and contemporaneous explanations by the actual founders of the country and writers of its Constitution, and their words and explanations are given less import than the opinions of current political expediency.
And to such as dolf, this makes sense.
Remember, dolf can only handle one tiny thought at a time. So if a road system was considered in 1916 and then it was considered even more important, and expanded, after considerations of national defense 30 years later, the only thing a dolf can consider is that the road system could not have been connected with ideas of national defense. Because, you know, like, Eisenhower hadn’t seen the autobahn in 1916.
Or that it was only found necessary for reasons of national defense because of fear of invasion from Canada.
With dolf, it’s always hard to sort out what the hell he is whingeing on about.
Is there a difference between the general welfare of the United States, as an entity, and individuals who live in the United States?
The clause you quoted says: “the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” “The United States” is an entity, a nation. Therefore, the general welfare of the nation is not the same thing as the general welfare of its inhabitants. Elsewhere in the document there are references to individuals, to individual rights and protections, but in this clause the wording does not include any reference to individuals, merely to the overall entity that is the United States of America.
Clearly the Constitution must concern itself with the general welfare of the entity it has created and is defining by its laws. Duh. That’s why its debts must be paid, and it must be defended. The nation, as an entity, must be protected.
It not only does not state that the welfare of individual inhabitants is an enumerated duty, contemporaneous writings and explanations by those who actually WROTE the document are clear that the welfare of individuals was not the intent of the clause.
“…many historians question…”
Now THERE’S a definitive statement for you. “Many” “Question” Wow—talk about knocking an argument into a cocked hat!
But when “many economists question ” (or out-and-out rebut) Leftist economics, that is not considered relevant.
How about “many scientists question” (or out-and-out rebut) AGW?
What dolf is really saying, in the guise of actually supporting an opinion, is that there are some people (who probably are “historians” because they self-identify as such, whether they know anything or not, like ‘intellectuals’) who kinda maybe wonder if an account is true.
This is what passes for political commentary from dolf and his fellow lightweights.
Question: is John Huntsman a “right wing extremist”?
Amy
I’m sure you didn’t go to college.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Jefferson
But clearly an interstate highway system or rural electrification are not specifically enumerated. Subsidies to corn farmers is nowhere in the constitution. Social security and medicare not in the constitution. Where is it in the constitution for the Louisiana purchase much less the right to eventually give the land away to settlers?
It’s an tired gooper routine to pretend the constitution is clear and exactly in line with what happens to be convenient to the Amy’s of the world. You must believe that every left-wing person on the supreme court is either incompetent or dishonest. It can’t be the homemaker with the mrs degree.
PS. Henry V is hardly obscure Shakespeare.
Maybe you should return, drop the Shakespeare, and re-take that Reading Comprehension 101 course several more times…
Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
Origins
Planning for what is now known as the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly called “The Interstate System,” began in the late 1930’s. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1938 called on the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR), the predecessor of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to study the feasibility of a toll-financed system of three east-west and three north-south superhighways.
Designation of the Interstate System
In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944, the Congress acted on these recommendations. The act called for designation of a National System of Interstate Highways, to include up to 40,000 miles “… so located, as to connect by routes, direct as practical, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the National Defense, and to connect at suitable points, routes of continental importance…announced selection of the first 37,700 miles. The routes had been proposed by the State highway agencies and reviewed by the Department of Defense.”
Interstate Funding
“how to fund the Interstate System was resolved with enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956…Title I of the 1956 Act increased the System’s proposed length to 41,000 miles…changed the name to the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, and set the Federal Government’s share of project cost at 90 percent.”
dbschmidt
Imagine a government agency is heavily lobbied, say university lobbyists encouraging huge government backing of student loans. The DOE wouldn’t say anything about the lobbyists, they would say education is a matter of national security.
Somehow you think things were somehow better in the old timey days. It’s astounding that you believe the interstate system wasn’t built to help out the auto industry. How naive are you? I suppose the USA needed a highway system to stop the invasion from Canada. You really need to stop being so gullible.
I love the highway system. I’m willing to taxes for it. It’s not in the constitution. It’s just nuts to think the GOP doesn’t just invent reasons to give taxpayer money to their friends but the Democrats do. The problem with that thinking is that Newt or Romney can run as fiscal conservatives. Snort.
So a national highway system which has a designated purpose of being able to facilitate military movements across the country is not really considered a matter of defense because when it is not needed to facilitate military movements across the country regular people are allowed to use it.
Thanks for clearing that up, dolf.
Wow, who knew that your fretting about whose cows are eating what grass has an element of fretting about why the interstate highway system was built—just more aid to someone.
You did hit upon an actual fact, though I am sure it was quite accidental. You dragged in rural electrification, for some odd reason, and you made the point that it is not connected with defense and is therefore not in the Constitution. Good for you—you finally got something right.
You do realize, don’t you, that the Conservative Movement is quite aware of incursions into the Constitution over the years, and has to deal with the fact that while something was not Constitutional when it was done, it is now an established fact of life, and that it is impossible to unring a bell? Just because something was done doesn’t mean it should have been done, or done in the way it was accomplished. Rural electrification is one of these things, as are Social Security and Medicare. But they are here, they are established, they are deeply rooted and part of the national infrastructure, and we are stuck with them.
Our goal, as conservatives, is to stop doing things like this.
But do yourself a favor and stop with the wild-eyed inventions you insist on posting here, such as “You must believe that every left-wing person on the supreme court is either incompetent or dishonest.” We have had quite enough peeks into the chaotic mess that is your mind, thank you very much, and we don’t need ongoing reminders of your inability to separate fact from fiction.
I was particularly struck by the insanity of “I suppose the USA needed a highway system to stop the invasion from Canada.” You really are embarrassing yourself. (And no, don’t hide behind a claim of sarcasm. Sarcastic or not, that came right out of the feverswamp of your own murky mind.)
And I did not mention Henry V
dolf, in dragging in things like the Louisiana Purchase and rural electrification, appears to be circling an argument that once the Constitution has been ignored to some degree, or an interpretation of same has been stretched a bit, that means we don’t need to start being more careful about following it now.
Let’s apply that same standard to other laws, OK? How many breaches of any law mean that the law should now be ignored?
He sure is snarky about those imaginary “homemakers with mrs. degrees” isn’t he? Quite the intellectual snob is our dolfie, smug in his imagined and largely invented intellectual superiority, sneering down from the heights of his adobe tower at the less-brilliant masses below. No wonder some of his students find him “condescending”.
And once again dolf shows off his ignorance of actual political philosophy, falling back on his People Magazine level of political analysis and awareness. He sneers It’s just nuts to think the GOP doesn’t just invent reasons to give taxpayer money to their friends but the Democrats do.
Yeah, it would be nuts to think that. Which is why no one does.
And this is relevant….how?
But thanks, dolf, for providing the most appropriate response to your silliness.
Snort
The closest thing America has ever had to a Right wing extremist in the White House was Richard M Nixon. Reagan by modern rules was not a conservative nor were either of the Bushes. Goldwater would not pass a modern conservative litmus test on social issues. Ditto for Hoover, Alf Landon or Governor Dewey.
Majordomo,
Don’t forget just about every President from George Washington till Woodrow Wilson. You know them radical founding fathers and such.
majordummy pain
JFK was pretty close to nixon in beliefs.
Love the headline at MarketWatch this morning:
Supercommittee: Profile in discourage
Panel tasked with devising a debt-cutting plan to the tune of more than $1 trillion is expected to announce its failure.
But what can you expect when a gullible GOP lets itself get suckered into a Lib power play? We saw this coming from the get-go. We knew the Dems would game this situation into yet another shot at class warfare and divisiveness—the only things they have going for them right now.
We are Charlie Brown, and the Libs are the ones holding the football, but we never learn. In this way the GOP does have something in common with starry-eyed wishful thinking Libs—“THIS TIME it will work”.
Well the supercommittee was constitutionally dubious to begin with as Ron Paul pointed out. The GOP house is going to have to make actual tough decisions. That will be fun to watch.
The GOP house has already made some tough decisions when they wrote and passed Cut, Cap and Balance, which still languishes on Harry Reid’s desk. I say it’s time that the big government democrats start making some tough decisions.
By the way, did anyone see drama queen Mika on Morning Joe this morning, nearly cry over evil Gingrich’s comments? That was must see TV.
cluster
mika; the close relative of a JEW hating commie, supporting the JEW hating OWS, which is a political arm of the JEW hating WH.
who’d a thunk that?
From Reuters via Drudgereport-
“Today, about 20 percent of Iowa farm land is owned by people who don’t live in the state, according to Iowa State University data. The average Iowa farmland owner is a single woman – often a widow – who is over the age of 70.”
What’s the point?
Farmland Ownership and Tenure in Iowa is a report that comes out every 5 years. The % are consistant with the previous report.
About 7% of the total or about 35% of the non resident ownership is Government owned, and 40% is property owned by non residents is property that is rented to state residents.
The age of the owners has been roughly the same since 1992. so what’s your point?
The point is Drudge is trying to scare people into investing in another real estate bubble by making it sound like that’s where the smart money is headed. I also liked the idea that Amazona is actually representative of those still willing to work smallish parcels of land as opposed to the extremist she is on B4V.
The 2007 report seems at odds with your statement “The age of the owners has been roughly the same since 1992. ”
There are three discernable trends in the Iowa farmland market.
Perhaps the mega trend, or overriding one to which most of the
other changes could be attributed, is the increasing age of the
farmland owner. In 2007, more than half the farmland
(55 percent) in Iowa was owned by people over the age of 65.
People between 65 and 74 owned 27 percent of the farmland
and people over 75 years of age owned 28 percent of Iowa’s
farmland. In 1982 these same age categories had a combined
ownership of just 29 percent.
barstool,
Real estate is fluid. Those dynamics are guaranteed to change, and the smart money is going to real estate. Residential, in many pockets, has been on fire the last two years and there is still some low hanging fruit out there for the patient investor. On top of that the commercial bubble is just starting.
Yahoo: U.S. and allies to unveil new Iran sanctions
The measures come amid growing concern that Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Exclusive: CIA spies caught, fear execution in Middle East
Is Obama going to start another war in the MidEast? I thought he was a secret Muslim.
CIA spies should never “fear” execution if caught. In fact, I think it’s in the job description. And I don’t think leading from behind, which seems to be a favored position, will get Obama into another war.
cluster
GO NEWT
Woo Hooo
baldork
Newt Now is right!! Great video clip
Gingrich at top of pack for first time in CNN polling
He is the only one taking the fight to the commies and Ochimpy.
baldork
, lines up with your right-wing nutjob views. How convenient.
there is NO “secret” about is……….annnnnd get this!!!! Ta DA
MUSLIMS MURDER other MUSLIMS by the 100’s of THOUSANDS
baldork
OOPS
should have been
I thought he was a secret Muslim.
Ouch: Dem Pollsters Say Obama Should Drop out
but but butt…………what about the Mooch?
Neo, do any of those women have concrete in thier butts? 😛
GMB
No
just tire inflating gel and caulk.
WOW even the Russians.
But I thought the whole would would looove the one and respect the US around the world???
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/11/watch-russian-news-anchor-not-fan-of.html
Gee I wonder why the ruskies give twinkle toes the bird…..LOL
ENOUGH allready…..
Hey libs OCW watch THIS….
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent
OBAMA’S AMERICA
Though incorrectly attributed to Dr. Thomas Sowell. This unknown author has made a brilliant assessment our nation at this hour in history:
“The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama’s America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.
It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.
It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals:
defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person’s guaranteed liberties.
It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor.
It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.
Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America.”
“Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual
could ignore or evade it.”
“Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Now THIS could have been said by Dr. Sowell, who wrote a great book about intellectuals in the United States, and pointed out that an “intellectual” is nothing more than someone whose only product is ideas.
And that he gets to keep the title no matter how many of those ideas are wrong.
I’d love to apply that standard to, for example, math. Would dolf still be considered a mathematician if all of his work was proved to be wrong.
And speaking of dolf, we can be glad your quote was not from Dr. Sowell, or dolf might be spurred to tell us, as he did about the wonderful Sowell book Conflict of Visions, that if you change the words in a book it will mean something different.
Amy
The thing about mathematics is my work could be proved wrong by anyone. Mathematicians produce wrong proofs all the time. They just throw them in the garbage at the end of the day. What is not thrown in the garbage is submitted to peer reviewed journals where other mathematicians check the proofs for veracity. To have all my work proved wrong would require that dozens of top rated mathematicians and editors would all have to be wrong.
baldork
To have all my work proved wrong would require that dozens of top rated mathematicians and editors would all have to be wrong.
Camon!!!! delusion much?
Neo
Of course I’m delusional. Why else would I be on B4V?
baldork
LOL LOL 🙂
So what you are saying is that even if every one of your mathematical formulae and proofs is found to be wrong, even if you can’t add 2 and 2, if you call yourself a mathematician then you are, by definition, a mathematician?
Because that was my point, not what it would take to prove you wrong.
But you seem to be saying that “mathematician”, like “intellectual”, is nothing more than a self-applied identifier not dependent on objective accuracy of product.
Interesting………
Amazona, it may sound strange to someone who spends as much time pounding the keys on this blog as you do, but I actually work. I have responsibilities to clients and family, and owe nobody here anything except basic courtesy.
You and a few others here habitually take statements by people with whom you disagree and twist them into entirely different meanings, that a literal reading of the original words can’t support. This makes meaningful conversation with you impossible. Then you take strands of those interpretations of yours and spin multiple questions from them which are chaff one could endlessly chase down and answer, to which you would do the same thing all over again.
Blogs are pretty far down on my list of priorities. I’m glad you have a hobby that gives your leisure time enjoyment, but some of us are too busy in the real world to provide sport for you.
Provide an example.
dennystooge
but some of us are too busy in the real world to provide sport for you.
Damn there goes saturday.
maybe we can recruit some trolls from the fork in your absence.
BuB BuyaH
OK, dennis, why not try for a “meaningful conversation”.
What I see happening is that you make sweeping statements that I feel are false, and when I challenge you to back them up you ignore me.
How “meaningful” can any conversation be, when one person just makes assertions which cannot, or at least are not, supported by fact, and the other person wants to start on a basis of actual fact and not just talking points?
You make statements. I ask questions about those statements and you dismiss, or at least try to dismiss, the fact that you can’t back up those statements by merely dismissing my questions as “chaff”.
Then you invent a scenario in which even if you COULD answer those questions (with the implication that you could, if you wanted to) I would just “do the same thing all over again”.
If by doing the same thing all over again you mean I would continue to ask for verification for Leftist talking points, you actually do have a point there. But the real point, the underlying point, is that you Lefties can’t verify your talking points, and count on just throwing them out there hoping they will be accepted at face value.
For example, YOU used the phrase ” …another right wing extremist in the White House….” and I asked you to name even ONE “right wing extremist in the White House. I asked:
“Gee, who would that have been? And what characteristics defined him as a “right wing extremist”? ”
What’s so hard about that? If you said it, you must believe it, and if you believe it, it must be based on fact, right? So I asked you to explain those facts. And what do you do? Duck, dodge, evade, dismiss and generally hide from the reality that you can not only name a “right wing extremist in the White House” you can’t even define the term.
But the real point, the underlying point, is that you Lefties can’t verify your talking points, and count on just throwing them out there hoping they will be accepted at face value.
Liberalism relies on false premises to gain traction, solely because the actual historical record of liberalism is failure. Just the other day, I listened to Chris Matthews blather on about how conservatives oppose government. Now this is a national liberal figure, on a national stage, spewing out right lies and false hoods about an ideology he opposes, for the sole purpose of making liberalism seem more palatable, sensible and compassionate. Sadly for him, and other liberals, lying is the only way they can create this perception, because their actual policies do nothing to bring about the results they desire.
Conservatives do not oppose government at all, in fact just the opposite. Conservatives want a more effective government, a government that is closer to the people, that gives more people, more say, and more influence on their how they are governed. But you will never hear this from a liberal.
What was that Wally? Any chance you can post something sensible, and free of the bile that results in your posts being deleted?
Cluster, wally can’t post anything beyond his mental poop flinging hoping something will stick.
What he calls “facts” (that are deleted because in his mind we are scared) are his usual personal attacks that are designed to protect his fragile ego. An ego that cannot stand the fact that his beliefs are so easily refuted and proven wrong.
To him, if we don’t answer some of his silly questions, we are lying since we are “afraid of the truth”.
Then when his posts are deleted we “go running to the moderator” to have them deleted.
Wally’s little land of make believe is truly a bizarre world.
Wally’s little land of make believe is truly a bizarre world.
LOL. Agreed
Here are some more of the questions dennis tries to dismiss with his claim that I “…take statements by people with whom (I) disagree and twist them into entirely different meanings, that a literal reading of the original words can’t support. ”
So let’s look at what dennis actually SAID: …the very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth, largely from the earnings of the poorer classes, neither by hard work nor creativity but through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets, monopolies, unfair trade practices and the like..”
Now let’s see how I twisted those words into entirely different meanings, that a literal reading of the original words can’t support. Ready?
Name an unregulated market, and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.
Name a monopoly and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes”.
Name unfair trade practices and then explain how they “exploit” those “poorer classes”.
Yep, pretty darned hard to see how I managed to get to “Name an unregulated market, and then explain how it “exploits” those “poorer classes” when I had to start from “…the very wealthiest continue accruing great wealth………through exploitative policies permitted by unregulated markets”.
Well, I DID “twist” exploitative into exploit but I do think that a literal reading of the original word can support the change. I don’t find this to be a distortion into an “entirely different meaning”.
No, dennis just likes to spit out tired old Lefty talking points, salting them with selective quotes from the Bible which he DOES “twist” to support his Leftist dogma, but he doesn’t like being asked to back up what he says, so he invents excuses to duck answering questions.
What I get from the long list of deleted Wallace posts is that Wallace is a long-time loser, so hardened to constant rejection and disdain that it no longer registers with him.
Any normal person would look at his failures and the contempt with which his mewlings are received with discomfort, and choose not to expose himself to more and more scorn and rejection.
Only someone with a lifelong history of being disliked, isolated and dismissed could be so oblivious to the obvious humiliation of being routinely treated as an unwelcome loser. So, we see Wallace/Thomas/Sasan coming back for more.
Of course, there is the possibility that he LIKES being abused, which is pretty creepy, but then I have seen a picture of the unibrowed scowler and find nothing too creepy to be associated with him.
Wallace,
I do have to admit that you are a terrific source of entertainment, so please continue to frequent this blog and regale us all with your bullet proof facts, that no one could possibly refute. Maybe someday you will convince us that liberalism is a successful ideology despite all evidence to the contrary. Have a very Happy Thanksgiving.
wow, wally I did not think you would have trouble knowing the difference between “facts” and FACTS.
We deal with FACTS easily proven, while you deal in “facts” – as in only you and your fellow mindless drones believe them and they are easily refuted.
But as cluster said, keep posting your little pathetic attempts at poop flinging and hoping something will stick – It is very entertaining.
You keep demonstrating that you drones believe if you repeat something over and over, eventually it will become true. No matter how many times you repeat “tired has gone off the deep end” and “tired keeps running to the moderator” will not make them true. They never were true and never will be true.
And, if you keep repeating the same tactic over and over and over you will not get a different result. You again post crap you know will get deleted but you have this little glimmer of hope that the rules will be set aside for you if you keep at it.
You and your little land of make believe is a very troubled world.
Gee, wally, still stuck on stupid, I see.
I never denied that David Duke was a Republican – just proved he was a Republican in name only.
However, when I used your logic that you used to define Duke to define Hitler as a socialist (lefty), you denied and lied. Typical.
Again wally, you repeating a lie over and over will not make them true.
– just like “tired has gone off the deep end” and “tired keeps running to the moderator”, you have NOT PROVED these to be true. They are just your opinion in your land of make believe.
Again, I have proved my points – you again have not.
Thanks for playing.
Ah, the ole David Duke is a republican. Kill all then because David Duke is a republican. Doesn’t matter that the repub party repudiated everthing mr duke stands for .
Hmm wonder why the imperial grand dragon robert byrd wasnt linked to klan all the time? Explain that one wallace. This should be interesting.
Nah, I just enjoy beating up on you people until you can’t take it anymore.
Wallace, you give a whole new meaning to the phrase, “get a life”. Have you ever considered medication, or maybe a support group?
wow wally, you again demonstrate you don’t know the difference between actual facts and delusional opinions (yours). And at the same time, you are still stuck on stupid.
Until you prove your delusional and inaccurate opinions, they are just your usual run of the mill baseless claims.
Now that you have been thoroughly embarrassed again, that new alias is looking better and better, isn’t it?
gee wally, you now show you don’t know what a melt down is.
Or, is a melt down anything you say it is – apparently the latter.
But, when you resort to your childish attacks, we know we got the better of you.
You did it again. You lost, get over it and thanks for playing.
“Ah, the ole David Duke is a republican.”
Well, neocon said that David Duke is a Democrat. I corrected him, and tired absolutely lost it. It was one of his more impressive meltdowns, and all it took was a simple citation of fact to somebody else. Pretty sad for him, huh?
I wonder how long it will take for a number 1 large with a coke at mcdonalds to cost $29.99? Who will be potus when it happens?
$9.99 for the meal and $20.00 for the “health tax”.
The current price for a number 1 large is about $6. To get to $30 requires 400% inflation. Annual inflation has been below 5% for the last 20 years and is much lower than that on average. A reasonable guess is that the price won’t be hit for 20-30 years.
baldork
riiiiight
Bardolf,
I don’t believe your figures are adjusted for inflation.
Reasonableness like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me it is unreasonable that you should expect me to pay your rent, for your food, and for your health care.
We are living in an unreasonable world. You demand that other people pay for you to exist and are astonished when you meet resistance. When will you get tired and just start taking what you want? It is already happening. You will get your revolution.
However, this is not Russia in October of 1917. The dynamics are vastly different. There are people prepared to resist you utopia.
Start you revolution. Some of us are tired of waiting.
‘dolf,
Good job /sarc 400% inflation? And you call yourself a mathematician?
Your “guess” is about right in spite of your absurd contention, using the previous generation of inflation and extrapolating out, in 27 years (2038) the $6 meal will cost $29.11.
Jonathan Krohn should be President by then.
more O army
D.C. Area Flash Mob Shoplifts from 7-11 Store
A flash mob of some 50 people shoplifted snacks and drinks from a Maryland 7-Eleven Saturday night. As officers arrived at the Silver Spring convenience store late that evening, the crowd of what mainly seemed to be teenagers, dispersed.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/flash-mob-shoplifts-from-maryland-7-11-store/
‘Occupy Black Friday’ Aims to Rattle the Stock Market
the birth pains, More to come culminating in the 2012 loss and national RAMPAGE!!
A Real Chance to make a difference in someone’s life; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_4I-8Fsu68g
Aye Aye Cap’n
LOL 🙂
Wanna see what gets ignored by baldorf? Try this:
The clause you quoted says: “the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” “The United States” is an entity, a nation. Therefore, the general welfare of the nation is not the same thing as the general welfare of its inhabitants. Elsewhere in the document there are references to individuals, to individual rights and protections, but in this clause the wording does not include any reference to individuals, merely to the overall entity that is the United States of America.
Clearly the Constitution must concern itself with the general welfare of the entity it has created and is defining by its laws. Duh. That’s why its debts must be paid, and it must be defended. The nation, as an entity, must be protected.
When his silliness is rebutted, he simply does not respond, which I take to be acknowledgement that his argument has no validity.