Where is the US economy headed?

Easy. One that comes to mind, a famous one, that something called "Right to Privacy" mysteriously discovered or manufactured in the Constitution by goofy judges, is justification for killing the unborn. It would seem that if that was something real, it could be used for all kinds of crimes if it was done in private, ci. If they had to rule on the constitutionality of abortion, at least don't manufacture a justification for it on the grounds of "right to privacy," that is frankly silly.

The problem is that every election period these characters appear out of the the wood works and try to influence opinion and thus affect the elections.

rl, Because "it's the game we play" on a2k. It keeps my mind stimulated and alert for the kind of garbage many posters seem to enjoy sharing on a2k. Without any challenge, people will think what they post is true and create believers of like-minded robots.

The Constitution is the bare fundamentals and was written in an agricultural society. It is up to the government of the moment to make laws better suited to the society at that time. Living in a society means a lot of give and take. Your position is just take.

Sad but very true, Thank you for enlightening me.

Interesting, maybe Obama could reduce the deficit by almost a million if he got his own staff to pay the taxes they owe. The startling thing is that federal employees across the country owe about a billion in taxes. If they can't manage their own finances, no wonder the country is going broke with them spending our tax money!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/10/white-house-aides-owed-g-taxes/

"White House Aides Owed More Than $800G in Back Taxes

President Obama might want to audit his own staff as he sets out to close the deficit. Turns out he could shake them down for close to a cool million in back taxes.

According to a Washington Post analysis of IRS data, a total of 41 White House staff members owed back taxes worth more than $831,000 at the end of 2009.

The data did not show how much of that has since been repaid, if any, but it was just a piece of the $1 billion owed by federal workers across the country."

Now that, Okie, is some incredibly sloppy reporting by Fox. I can provide the numbers from the Washington Post article but perhaps it would be faster if you would link us to the entire article and save me the trouble. It talks about past due taxes in some depth and even has some graphs comparing the Obama vs Bush numbers.
I wouldn't get too excited about this, Okie.

The FFs disagreed among themselves! So, which faction do you want to follow?

And what do you do about technology that did not exist in the 18th C? How are judges supposed to rule on issues involving contemporary technology?

As goofy and twisted as your syntax?

So, would you force a woman to carry to term a fetus shown to be anencephalic?

Thank you, thank you, thank you! The Constitution was written more than 2 centuries ago in an agricultural society. That is the crux to what is wrong with strict constructionism.

I have been talking about the real criminals in America: those in the top 1% of the earnings heap.

I have waited and waited to hear from those posters who realize that some of these criminals are the people whose job it is to entertain us.

Does the fleeting pleasure they provide really earn some of the inflated salaries they demand?

Today's Morning Edition on NPR featured an interview with Jim Bouton, whose career began while I was in high school, 1962. That year, the physics teacher at our school earned $125/week. He's the only adult whose salary I had a handle on then. Bouton's average annual salary during his career was just under $20,000. His earnings were compared on air to those of Alex Rodriguez.

For those of you who do not know what freecycle is, it is an internet network which allows people to exchange goods through local posting areas. I gave away orange daylillies through freecycle. The woman who took them is the mother of two young boys. While we dug side by side, she told me that her husband had been given a pair of tickets to a Red Sox game and he took their older son. She talked about how the trip into Boston, with parking and the requisite hot dogs was a financial stretch for them. She said that she was grateful to the person who had given the tickets to her husband, a dyed-in-the-wool fan, because she could not figure out how he could ever have had such a dad and son outing without free tickets.

To those bitter harpies on this thread who continually repeat that the government takes money away from those who earn it and give it to those who do not, think of the sort of crime against all the dads in America the price of tickets to "America's favorite pastime" is.

The real criminals are those who prevent ordinary families (well, somewhat above ordinary as both parents are college graduates) from doing ordinary things, like taking their kids to a Sunday baseball game.

That is just one part of the tragedy of present day America.

So do you recommend 2 constitutions now, one for agricultural America and one for urban America? I don't think your reasoning is logical, pom. Principles are pinciples that should apply to every kind of community.

A quick search reveals that only about 1/10th of 1 percent of pregnancies involve that condition to any extent at all, while the map shown below illustrates that between about 15 and 20% of all pregnancies are aborted in the United States, pom. I doubt that any serious argument to justify widespread abortions upon demand can be made based upon the anencephalic condition.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapworldabrate.html
Abortion percentage by country, worldwide--most recent data, country average.

Okie wrote this:



As usual, this post by okie had absolutely nothing to do with my post. Where the above post came from and what it has to do with mine (below) is anyone's guess!

In response to this, from me:


Could someone please explain to him that I never said anything about two Constitutions?

This is not the first time that he has answered a post here with something so totally unrelated that it would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic.

Then, he has . . . not certain which direct object to use here . . . the nerve? . . . the total lack of critical thinking? . . . the imagination? . . . the inability to recognize the basic meaning of words? . . . to suggest that my "reasoning is not logical" when he came to a conclusion that is so unlike my statement that all I could wonder was whether some secret sock puppet, writing on an invisible computer, using my nom d'email and my account, created two or three pages of hidden text to which okie responded!

That doesn't answer the question. So, you would force a woman to give birth to an anencephalic child?

I will try to answer as best I can. This is a tough issue and it is a tough question, pom. I think we need to approach this issue from a position of sound constitutional law to begin with, and I simply do not think the "Right to Privacy" reasoning as used in Roe v Wade is valid at all, so I would start with that observation. Secondly, I understand that the woman referred to as Roe has done a 180 and now opposes abortion, largely trying to clear her conscience from the decision Roe v Wade. That should tell us much, pom. I also understand from what I have absorbed about this, is that those women that have abortions, many suffer tremendous life-long issues of guilt, it essentially leaves an emotional scar on them the rest of their life. I simply cannot believe that promoting abortion in this country can be a good thing, just based upon common sense itself.

With all of that said, I recognize that there are in fact a very very small percentage of abortions that are done, that may have life threatening issues for the mother. And you bring up an example of the Anencephaly, yes that is a tough one, but do we simply kill people in this country if they are vegetables for example? No we do not. I personally know a young man, an honor student, that was born at about 6 months and not given much chance at all. I also know a man that was a supposed vegetable after a vehicle accident, but he defied the odds and has made almost a full recovery to live independently now. Most people had written him off. So I come back to the idea that compassion is always the best path.

My final analysis, I am no expert on this, but my brother was a doctor until retired. He influenced me greatly in my opinion about this, and to summarize it quickly, he recognized the miracle of a baby to be born and he was very adamantly against abortion and would never perform an abortion, as far as I know. Also, I probably have never mentioned this before, we have adopted children in our family and they first of all are very adamantly opposed to abortion, as is the remainder of the family.

Finally, I think we first need to return to sound constitutional law by striking down the very poorly reasoned Roe v Wade decision, and perhaps go back to the situation of allowing the states to determine the issue, state by state. I would need to study the issue in much more detail, study statistics and get input from the medical community, to provide a better and more in depth answer for you, pom.

okie, You can you declare the constitution on one issue, and neglect it on others? Do you understand "consistency?"

I think your question is mis-worded, but if I get your drift, I agree with the Constitution as written, but that does not compel me to agree with every Supreme Court Decision, does it you? For example, I think the Roe v Wade decsion was a bad one, based upon bad reasoning in regard to something invented out of the constitution, "The right to privacy."