Obama '08?

The major difference is that she does still have a chance to win the nomination. I don't think she should drop out... not yet, anyway.

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

As a casual observer, it seems obvious that Obama will be more sympathetic to those politicial interests that advocate the elimination of the state of Israel. That does not strike me as complicated to figure out. Either one feels Israel has a right to exist or they don't, period.

Which one of these guys was more likeable? Which guy won?

................I think this is still relevant.

To liberals, that is translated 'provide'. To conservatives that means do what is reasonable to enable and then leave it up to the initiative, creativity, innovation, capability, and ability of the people to get it done.

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

snood wrote:

The obvious (well, obvious to anyone trying to look at it objectively) difference between the two races is that despite her losing so many primaries, her superdelegate projected count and her overall delegate count has remained within about 100 or so of Obama's. A far cry from the drudging Huckaby got in numbers. The simple fact is that she could reasonably still be considered a threat, albeit a considerably weakened one. Unlike Huckaby who would literally need a miracle to win.

Snood:
I only posed the question, because Mika Brezenski, posed it herself, that if Barack Obama, had lost, would the press be as kind? That's all. Don't know if I spelled her name right. She's the daughter of Zbigneiwe Brezenski! She was unknown, except for her father. It pays to be related, huh? Well, that said, both candidates, should be leaning on McCain, but for Hillary, Barack, is an easy target, for her!

FreeDuck wrote:

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

No, its NOT supposed to "PROVIDE for the general welfare".

If you actually read the preamble, here is what it says...

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide.
There is a difference.

Promote means it is supposed to give everyone an equal chance, nothing more.

whereas Obama most often promises to fix the broken **** so that we can fulfill our potential.

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

No, its NOT supposed to "PROVIDE for the general welfare".

If you actually read the preamble, here is what it says...

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide.
There is a difference.

Promote means it is supposed to give everyone an equal chance, nothing more.

Thank you, Justice MM.

[ I heard Obama promise in one debate that he would end global warming.

Diest TKO wrote:

Okie - Guess what? The government is supposed to take care of it's people. It's kind of it's purpose. You call it spoiling because it gives it the particular brand you desire to give it. The truth is that when it comes to the interest of bussiness versus citizens, it'a no-brainer.

T
K
O

Where is it written in the Constitution that "The government is supposed to take care of it's people"?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
Personally, I dont want the govt to take care of me, I want them to leave me alone.

Quote:

whereas Obama most often promises to fix the broken **** so that we can fulfill our potential.

That qualifies as PROMOTING the general welfare, Hillary is promising to PROVIDE the general welfare.

And so I am not interested in talk. I am not interested in speeches. I would not be running if I wasn't absolutely convinced that I can put an economic agenda forward that is going to provide them with health care, is going to make college more affordable, and is going to get them the kinds of help that they need not to solve all their problems, but at least to be able to achieve the American dream.

mysteryman wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Okie - Guess what? The government is supposed to take care of it's people. It's kind of it's purpose. You call it spoiling because it gives it the particular brand you desire to give it. The truth is that when it comes to the interest of bussiness versus citizens, it'a no-brainer.

T
K
O

Where is it written in the Constitution that "The government is supposed to take care of it's people"?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
Personally, I dont want the govt to take care of me, I want them to leave me alone.

So MM looked it up and found that the Constitution had a Preamble but should have reead further:

Section. 8.

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;

FreeDuck wrote:

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

No, its NOT supposed to "PROVIDE for the general welfare".

If you actually read the preamble, here is what it says...

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide.
There is a difference.

Promote means it is supposed to give everyone an equal chance, nothing more.

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

MM, the government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of its people. I'm sure that means different things to each of us.

No, its NOT supposed to "PROVIDE for the general welfare".

If you actually read the preamble, here is what it says...

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice it says PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide.
There is a difference.

Promote means it is supposed to give everyone an equal chance, nothing more.

I often wonder why some don't heed the advice of Sam Clemens and remain silent.

Article 1, Section 8:


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;


MM is arguing that the Government should not follow the Constitution. Isn't that typical for a Bush diehard?

MM is arguing that the Government should not follow the Constitution. Isn't that typical for a Bush diehard?

Quote:

MM is arguing that the Government should not follow the Constitution. Isn't that typical for a Bush diehard?

Then why dont you give us your definition "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

I am not advocating that the govt not follow the Constitution, and I never have..