O/T: A Prognostication

Page 2 of 3  

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Some folks insist that the Founders didn't want an armed citizenry aside from service in a state militia. Actually the Founders made it clear that an armed citizenry independent of the state was exactly what they wanted, some of them wrote and spoke on the subject in very clear terms, just as they did on the subject of how undesirable it was for govt. and religion to be mixed. The courts consider such extra-constitutional evidence when they are interpreting the Constitution, which seems a reasonable thing to do when trying to figure out what the Founders *meant* which is the role which inevitably came to the courts.

Pretty much the theme of the Bill of Rights.

They had to agree to legal slavery for the same reason, but that doesn't mean many weren't holding their noses when they signed.

Put me down on the list of those who are pleased that the courts went that route, state religions are things of horror.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

Dammit, there's always some guy who's gotta blurt out the punchline halfway through the joke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As "one nation under God" was added to the pleadge of allegience in 1954.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:08:07 -0400, Steve wrote:

Actually, only the "under God" was added. As I started school in 1942 the new version still sounds strange to me :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Actually, the founding fathers said, in the 1st Amendment, that the FEDERAL government should stay out of the religion business; states were free to have their own state church (which several, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, did). It wasn't until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) that the 1st Amendment's clause on religion became binding on the individual states.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:44:07 -0500, Dr. Deb wrote:

When has the Constitution prevented any president from doing what he wanted? My personal memory goes back to when Truman nationalized the railroads.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ayup, you'd never accuse a conservative of having an agneda. Kinda like superior beings, all-knowing and stuff.
D'ohBoy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Oh there will be a resolution, all of those critters up there is Washington know full well that if they don't come up with a plan or agreement that it will be political suicide for them all regardless of which party held out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It was all posturing, period. They knew it would _literally_ destroy the country and that they couldn't allow that to happen. (Correction, the puppets' handlers wouldn't allow that to happen.)
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 12:12 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Why should he do any different than in the past when the government was shut down for several days because the party in power failed to do their job and did not properly manage the budget and caused a need to raise the budget limit.
His disapproval rating 4% than his approval rating (Real Clear politics Poll which is a composite of about 8 other polls.) Most of the country disagrees with his policies. Is there any wonder why he is against the short term solution that would bring his 40% (about 50% in a year) increase in the national debt before the public just before the election.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

There will be NO "default" regardless of what Obama, congress, et al says/does and despite what the rating agencies may proffer (which is strictly opinion with no legal weight), all this is strictly political theater.
The reality is that you are being strummed like an out of tune guitar ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 7:22 AM, Swingman wrote:

Exactly, they will simply print more money and water down the dollar even more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Can't do that. The government doesn't print money (well, it does, but under contract to the Federal Reserve). But what the government CAN do is mint coins. By executive fiat, the government could design and create a, say, $100 coin (made out of pure aluminum) and monetize the debt with billions of dollars worth of soda cans.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would like to think so. However, other than a TV slot the other night, he has been pretty much an active non-participant so far.
RonB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's some predictions:
1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side will be wrong.
2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot, he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding issues.
3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.
4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the debate.
D'ohBoy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 8:59 AM, SconnieRoadie wrote:

That that is an entirely likely scenario, considering the efforts at "divisiveness", I could not agree more!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SconnieRoadie wrote:

There is no such thing as a "viable" third-party candidate. The closest we've ever come to that was when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate. His candidacy cost Howard Taft the election and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most venal president we've EVER had).
Third party candidates take votes away from the major party candidate to which they are closest. If Al Gore decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, he'll take votes away from Obama. If Ron Paul decides to run, he'll take votes from Rick Perry.
What would be fun is if BOTH Gore and Paul decided to run!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011.
As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.
Obama will not allow default to happen.
Lew
I added this to a letter to our "leaders": Any responsible citizen must have a budget, stick to that budget or face the fallout... If I live beyond my means (as the government and many people have done) my credit rating will plummet, and rightfully so. To repair it I must pay down my debt, stop borrowing additionally and force myself to live within my means. If I do not, only bankruptcy can "save" me, but I don't believe our Nation has that fallback.
I am disappointed in the members of the Republican Party that abandoned "Cut, Cap and Balance Plan"
As to extending the Ceiling date beyond 2012, why should we... it is unpleasant business to be sure, but let's get it dealt with sooner rather than later.
Salary of the US President ...................$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0​00 Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400 Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000
Let the above be put into the Social Security for retirement, and under the VA for medical insurance. And who else in the work force can give themselves raises? I think we found where some of the cuts should be made !
Ben Franklin warned that if we let being a Legislator become a profitable position, we soon would have only profiteers filling the seats... seems like he hit it on the head!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 8:08 AM, Tom B wrote:

Do you mean the term that says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"? I wasn't aware that "Congress" means "the President."

Then he'd better resign himself to not vetoing Congress's bill, as he's threatened to do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".

If Congress fails to act, he has no choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.