Well, I do contribute the max I can to my 401K which got hammered this year but at least I'm trying. To be able to drop $25K is above my pay grade.
But I hear ya.
me too, but if you had an idea for a business wouldn't it be nice to have access to capital? most of the people who start businesses usually go to family and friends for money. Problem with most minorities is that our families and friends are broke. give the people who have an incentive to give us money and help us succeed.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 10-28-2008 at 05:07 PM.
People starting businesses need to get that book from the Question Mark suit wearing dude and find the funds that are out there.
most infomercials are a joke. anyways, both McCain and Obama are way off IMO.
Yes I will admit I was wrong. No question. If his term passes and we aren't France then I will say I was wrong.
And to answer several others -- No -- I never said I wanted it both ways -- the way our system is set-up the judicial branch does "change" thje cons ution based on its' interpretations -- and the way the couret is set-up makes those decisions almost entirely political. Guns - as someone posted -- Roe V. Wade - political decisions based on who appointed them - except in the case of Reagan who appointed judges who are now considered left leaning.
I accept that the Roberts was a conservative leaning choice. Obama will probably appoint justices that agree with him politically.
Will you admit you had no ing idea that a line item veto could do nothing to a passed amendment and that you were an idiot to say that it could?
well no - Clinton had the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 I believe and used it -- 11 or so times... I believe 43 governors have the power and virtually every President has asked for it -- and there are those who believe that it could be granted again..
How many cons utional amendments did Clinton use it on?
He could have used it -- if he chose to. I don't know - like I said - that was off pure memory -- and should it come back -- it could be used again for any proposed amm.
What a ridiculous assertion!
Ronald Reagan had 4 appointments to the Supreme Court during his two terms as President. In 1981, he replaced Justice Stewart with Sandra Day O'Connor. In 1986, he elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice to replace Chief Justice Burger and appointed Antonin Scalia to the Court to take the seat vacated by Justice Rehnquist. And in 1987, he appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court (after losing battles to appoint Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg).
As for the assertion that Reagan's appointees "are now considered left leaning," it's beyond absurd to claim that anyone thinks (or ever thought) of William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia as "left-leaning" except, perhaps, when a car either was riding in made a sharp left turn. Indeed, Rehnquist and Scalia are both considered judicial pointmen in the "conservative revolution."
Justice Kennedy might have once been considered to be a slightly leftward-leaning moderate, but more recent terms have shown him to be consistently voting with the established conservatives on the Court. In the last term (October Term, 2007), in non-unanimous cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 83% of the time, sided with Scalia 75% of the time, and sided with Alito 80% of the time. In the term before that (OT 2006), in the same kinds of cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 81% of the time, with Scalia 72% of the time, and with Alito 87% of time. Whatever claims of leftism might have once followed Kennedy around are now long since abandoned.
Justice O'Connor might have, on certain issues, been considered somewhat leftward-leaning, but her overall voting record suggests that either: (1) she was much more conservative than most think; or (2) the Justices who are considered to be conservatives must actually be liberals. In the 9 terms between OT '95 and OT '04, O'Connor voted most frequently with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas; at the lowest, she voted with Rehnquist 79% of the time (OT '01), with Scalia 81% of the time (OT '04), with Kennedy 83% of the time (OT '95) and with Thomas 81% of the time (OT '02). That's hardly a liberal voting record, I would say.
two of the four he appointed leaned left more than what was anticipated for a justice appointed by Reagan. A conservative would have expected them to be more like Roberts or Thomas -- SCALIA. It is not absurd.
O
M
G.
I really have to tip my hat to this kind of stupidity. It is rare indeed when I point out exactly why someone is wrong in very plain language, and the person still insists on repeating the same completely wrong argument.
Are you arguing against their conservative voting record?
You are as stupid as the day is long. Line Item Veto could very easily be given and could be used on proposed legislation and or amm. Several law professors have argued this point - BUsh attempted line item veto back in 2004 I think.O
M
G.
I really have to tip my hat to this kind of stupidity. It is rare indeed when I point out exactly why someone is wrong in very plain language, and the person still insists on repeating the same completely wrong argument.
A passed amendment has already been passed by a veto-proof majority.
O'connor and Kennedy both voted the same way in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992. Which is more specific to the issue of who Reagan appointed and how they gained that reputation
no dung -- I am fine. We will see what happens in time.
You need to go back in the thread a bit to where I tried to help you out.
Please do that. You are only making things worse for yourself.
It is. Your point would be valid if you were complaining about George H.W. Bush's appointments -- Thomas and Souter. Thomas is undoubtedly a conservative, but Souter is clearly left-leaning. Neither O'Connor nor Kennedy is left-leaning in any real objective sense; that neither is as conservative as Scalia or Thomas doesn't make either left-leaning.
So one case -- one vote that actually gave States greater ability to limit the availability of abortion -- is your basis for calling them left-leaning?
Go back and read the part about how an amendment is made. If it is going through it never touches the president's desk regardless of which way it is being proposed. Of the two ways, only one has ever been used. A proposed amendment must pass the congress by a 2/3 vote in order to be sent to the states for ratification. Do you know the signifigance of a 2/3 vote? It is veto-proof! To further explain, lets say a law is proposed, and it passes with a 62% majority, then the president vetos it (line item or otherwise), but lets say those 62% really really want this bill to pass. They will take it back to Congress and try really hard to get that remaining 4.67%. Why? because it OVERRIDES the presidents veto and becomes law at that moment. Back to the amendment to the cons ution, if it passes congress, it is ONLY because it has AT LEAST a 2/3 vote, i.e. a veto is already overridden and it is sent directly to the states for ratification. In the other scenario that hasn't been used, the states hold conventions for a proposed amendment, decide on the wording, and try to get 75% of their bretheren to ratify it. The federal government and most of all the president are not even involved. Once again, this has already been explained to you, why you are unable to grasp this is beyond me, but I won't call you stupid, just completely oblivious to reality.
Bro I understand it. I need no help with simpleton explanations of it. We will see what happens as congress has debated ammending the cons ution to grant this power to the President and with a liberal super majority behind him -- we will see.....
You're insane.
Even if a liberal super majority in Congress could get the amendment sent to the States for ratification, it still takes 38 states to ratify the amendment.
I'll remind you of this:
Do you really think there are 38 states that are liberal enough to ensure ratification of an amendment that will likely be opposed by the most vociferous talking heads in the media?
before or after the fairness doctrine ?You're insane.
Even if a liberal super majority in Congress could get the amendment sent to the States for ratification, it still takes 38 states to ratify the amendment.
I'll remind you of this:
Do you really think there are 38 states that are liberal enough to ensure ratification of an amendment that will likely be opposed by the most vociferous talking heads in the media?
Yes, Red States will undoubtedly become Blue States if the "Fairness Doctrine" is re-implemented.
I cant help your ignorance
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
