Obama '08?

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

general Welfare of the United States;

She has no chance save a career-ending type Obama scandal.

mysteryman wrote:

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

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;

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense and general welfare." It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head. [emphasis added -- Thomas]

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.

common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

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.

You want the goverment to leave you alone, but you took advantage of free government sponsored education. Do you understand anything about logic or conflicts? It's called "general welfare."

Quote:

general Welfare of the United States;

That does NOT mean each and every person in the US.
That means defense, infrastructure, taxes, and everything else needed to maintain the country.

Our founding fathers did not want this to be a "nanny state", where the govt gives everything to everybody.
They trusted people to be able to take care of themselves.

Giving everything to everybody would bankrupt this country so badly we could never get out of it.

Is that what you want?

Isn't this old news? I thought we discussed the land deal hundreds of pages ago.

February 27, 2008
Poll: McCain's hard to beat
Posted: 11:54 AM ET

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you refer to a "smear campaign." 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. I know it is nice to ride the fence and "seek dialogue" with all parties concerned, but at some point, riding the fence just will not work.

How productive is it to seek dialogue, talk to, negotiate with, compromise with, and so forth, with someone that is out to kill you? And when you point this out and oppose someone that advocates such activities, is that a smear campaign?

Poll: Most Israelis back direct talks with Hamas on Shalit

Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

The figures were obtained in a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted Tuesday under the supervision of Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University.

According to the findings, Israelis are fed up with seven years of Qassam rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza, as well as the fact that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half.
Advertisement

An increasing number of public figures, including senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces' reserves, have expressed similar positions on talks with Hamas.

It now appears that this opinion is gaining traction in the wider public, which until recently vehemently rejected such negotiations.

The survey also showed that Likud voters are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About half (48 percent) support talks with Hamas.

In Kadima, 55 percent are for talks, while among Labor voters, the number jumps to 72 percent.

The journalists who wrote the article (just yesterday) seem to think there is new information to divulge. Why call them 'haters' for publishing it?

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

The journalists who wrote the article (just yesterday) seem to think there is new information to divulge. Why call them 'haters' for publishing it?

Oh, they aren't the haters; you are. They are publishing articles in order to make money. Standard stuff for the news biz, trying to get more mileage out of older stories.

You on the other hand are merely flailing about for an effective way to tear Sen. Obama down. It's entertaining to watch but ultimately sort of sad.

Cycloptichorn

It is beyond dispute that American Jews overwhelmingly oppose core neoconservative foreign policy principles. Hence, in large numbers, they disapprove of the way the U.S. is handling its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31); overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (67-27); believe that things are going "somewhat badly" or "very badly" in Iraq (76-23); and believe that the "surge" has either made things worse or has had no impact (68-30).

When asked whether they would support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran, a large majority -- 57-35% -- say they would oppose such action, even if it were being undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons." While Jews hold views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which are quite pessimistic about the prospects for Israel's ability to achieve a lasting peace with its "Arab neighbors," even there, a plurality (46-43) supports the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In the realm of U.S. domestic politics, it is even clearer that right-wing neoconservatives are a fringe segment of American Jewish public opinion. By a large margin, American Jews identify as some shade of liberal rather than conservative (43-25), and overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans (58-15). And, most strikingly, by a 3-1 margin (61-21), they believe that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq," and by a similarly lopsided margin (53-30), believe that Democrats are "more likely to make the right decision when it comes to dealing with terrorism." They have overwhelmingly favorable views of the top 3 Democratic presidential candidates, and overwhelmingly negative views of 3 out of the top 4 GOP candidates (Giuliani being the sole exception, where opinion is split).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

The journalists who wrote the article (just yesterday) seem to think there is new information to divulge. Why call them 'haters' for publishing it?

Oh, they aren't the haters; you are. They are publishing articles in order to make money. Standard stuff for the news biz, trying to get more mileage out of older stories.

You on the other hand are merely flailing about for an effective way to tear Sen. Obama down. It's entertaining to watch but ultimately sort of sad.

Cycloptichorn

No, you just have a hard time reading anything that paints your candidate in a negative way. It's a recurring theme for all the KosKids.