Go away with that nonsense. It doesn't even deserve a reponse.
I'll tell you what. Find a 100 yr old dictionary like the 1906 I have, or older. Look at what several key words in the cons ution mean before words started changing in meaning. Once you do that, we might have a worthy debate. Until then, you haven't a clue, and I'm not going to explain it line by line.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-07-2010 at 07:47 PM.
RINO's, partially as a stunt to make points, doing what democrats promised to do for 40 years and make them look bad.
Invented? I don't know, but it was a democrat controlled congress that passed it, and president Bush was damned either way. If he didn't sign it, he still would have been blamed.
trust me. I say he was wrong for not vetoing it.
Evidence please.
So you can't prove it.
OK.
No, I can. I'm not going to attempt to change people's minds who don't have the proper resources at their fingertips. even then, I think it would be a waste of time. People like you simply are to biased to change.
Republicans. The rest are excuses.
The executive requested and sent the first memo to congress (the infamous two page do ent).
In other words, Republicans. The rest are excuses.
Trust me, his office was the proponent and he even went on TV to ask congress to accelerate the process and pass it after it didn't go through the first time. He was first in line to sign on that thing.
Do you see a concrete number on the Cons ution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it.
So you can't prove it and I have to take our word for it.
Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?
You simple mind is making me want to put you on ignore.
Just how much of a hardbound 1906 do you expect me to type for reference.
Go yourself.
You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money...
Just quote the relevant parts of the Cons ution. Specifically the part where Congress has the discretion to budget but it specifically forbids social spending. You know, here's an opportunity to show everybody how studied you are on this topic.
Resorting to defensive stands and silly insults really helps my cause, not yours.
I mean, even the US Postal Service was explicitly authorized by the Cons ution, and mandated to be profit-neutral.
Looks like those founding fathers were a bunch of socialists!
Then explain please:
And the cons ution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.
What part isn't clear? They can budget $350 billion for the Pentagon instead of $700+ billion. They would still be fulfilling the Cons utional mandate to fund the military. They could budget 1 single dollar and still fulfill the Cons utional mandate.
The Cons ution leaves to Congress the discretion to provide the funds as part of their budgeting process. It doesn't specifically indicates what amount that should be, for reasons that SHOULD BE obvious.
That's right El-Don't-Know...
Ignore your own previous statement that I responded to, and act like you didn't say it.
Bye.
I'm done with your silliness for today.
What part you don't understand of:
And the cons ution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.
I guess I should have added 'of what it spends now', to make it dummy proof?
You still haven't provided the quote where the Cons ution forbids Congress from budgeting social programs...
That's why it's in my signature. We all could all benefit from getting the 12 trillion dollar debt under control. Please, if you can spare it, throw some money at the problem.
WC, ElNono's proposition is rather simple.
The Cons ution says that the Congress can vote for a standing army. It does not say how much MUST be spent. So theoretically, Congress could vote to only spend $1000 a year for an army, correct?
Also, doesn't it mention providing for the "common good"? Who's to say your definition of the common good trumps someone else's?
I have little doubt he understood it the first time around...
First of all, I am sorry to hear about many of you starving and homeless because of ruinous taxes.
Also, the cons ution states that "The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States". Pretty much everything can fit under that umbrella.
As for voluntary taxes, I do buy Lotto tickets.
I know. The two of you are missing what I said.
Did I say otherwise?
Where?
Promote the general welfare;
Provide for the common defense;
Insure the blessings of liberty.
Where is provide for the common good in the preamble, cons ution, or amendments? I'm not aware of it.
As for our misunderstanding:
El: "Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it."
Me: "Evidence please."
El: "Do you see a concrete number on the Cons ution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it."
Me: "Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?"
El: You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money..."
I see El Nono meant at first that congress can reduce the spending. However, how he worded it, It appeared as if he was saying congress is only authorized to spend half or less. Congress can spend more if they want. It looks like this was my misunderstanding. I was wanting El Nono to show me why congress was only authorized to spend half of what they do on the military.
My bad...
Sorry El Nono.
It's all good
I'm glad we're clear...
Wish the wingnuts were as cost-conscious when it came to starting unneeded wars. Iraq $710,918,351,904 ...and counting.
Is that the cost above the normal military expenditures?
Still cheaper than the health care plan.
Ah, I meant general welfare. You and I both know that "general welfare" meant something different than it does now.
However, there's nothing stating that we have to use the original language of those who wrote the Cons ution and maintain that. Words do change over time... heck, look at the phrase, "All men are created equal"... certainly, the definition of what cons uted a man has changed, as it relates to their right to freedom.
If the original US Cons ution, including the Reconstruction Amendments specifically designed to effectuate liberty for emancipated persons in the 1860's, had already been in effect for their descendants in the 1960's, no civil or voting rights adjustments would have been necessary as a national policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
