If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Werner J. Severin" wrote in message ... Their fair share for ALL programs is the same as everyone else. If they are "unconstitutional, unworkable,immoral programs" then convince the majority and have them repealed. It's called democracy. The Constitution of the United States of America We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. Note: "promote the general welfare" The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not mean what you think it does. President Franklin Pierce was confronted with this situation, this is what he said years and years ago... he is still correct today: "I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner [one who gives something to the poor] of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded...'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." jay Mon Jan 19, 2004 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
particularly since there aren't so MANY of them (but remember, they are all
"volunteers") "None" wrote in message hlink.net... "DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com wrote in message ... True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" than anything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it? (oh, and I got out of the army myself about 40 years ago - VietNam and all that) As an american citizen, I humbly apologize for what our country did to our VietNam veterans and their families. I shudder to think what we will be doing to our Iraqi Invasion vets. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
None wrote:
Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't! How does one prove a negative? Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
DALing wrote:
True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" than anything else. The new rule of thumb: The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ... None wrote: Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't! How does one prove a negative? Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. How soon we forget. The issue was not to prove they didn't, it was to prove they got rid of the stuff they admitted having in the first place. Pete |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Kal Alexander" wrote in message ... devil wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:43 -0500, Gwen Saylor wrote: =Sara wrote: Yeah, just as there's no financial situation where the Democrat doesn't scream for higher spending Like $87 billion for Iraq and a few billoion more for NASA? Suuurre. This is one fiscally conservative admin we've got here. You conveniently forget to recall how many billions and billions were already spent on Iraq for the 12 years before Bush took office due to the presence and moves by Hussein. And the $ number was getting higher and higher with no end in sight due to the failure of the "containment." . Did you think all of those daily no-fly zone sorties were free? When Clinton bombed Baghdad in 1998 with more missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War, did you think that was free? Or the 1994 bombings? Or the 1996 bombings? Did you think the constant built up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were free? Did you think the aircraft carriers that needed to be in the Gulf constantly were free? Today all of that is changing. And it will only get better going forward as things wind down in Iraq. Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has been borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow. Just how big a drop in the bucket? What is the dollar amount on all of the above? Just curious. Isn't it odd that, when the Democrats run up the deficit, "pay as you go" is the Republican mantra, but when the Republicans do it, "tax and spend" (a euphemism for "pay as you go") becomes a terrible policy? Or is it merely another example of hypocrisy in government? George Z. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Stark Raven" wrote in message ... In article , Paul Middlestat wrote: Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits. Someone who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which was not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring trip? I'm guessing probably not. A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary to charity. Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is where publically-earned money comes from, you know. I for one find it strange that the current administration had rather give $500,000 to Charles Schwab to maintain a rice farm for duck hunting purposes than $300 to a welfare mom. Of course they had rather be invited to a duck hunt than collards and greens. Nothing strange about it. How much does the welfare mom contribute to the reelection coffers compared to Charlie? I believe it's spelled G R E E D or perhaps C O R R U P T I O N.....take your pick. George Z. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it (especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on invading you). If you start with an inflated estimate of the amount of WMD in the first place, of course nothing will convince you that all of it was destroyed. Iraq was compelled to submit a 10,000 page report as to it's WMD status. To date, I have yet to hear that any aspect of that report was false. David Kay was assigned the task of finding WMD. At one point he gloated over a room stacked to the ceiling with documents - every page scanned into a bank of computers. I have yet to hear anything productive come from his efforts (which I suspect were more to discover and destroy evidence and links of the US-supplied chemical weapons to Iraq in the 1980's). Mobile chemical manufacturing trucks have been proven to be Brittish trucks sold to Iraq to generate Helium for battlefield target balloons. The US claimed to know where the WMD were, but for baffling reasons they never told the UN inspectors on the ground. Look. The UN had several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq in late 2002/early 2003. They had complete access to any site they wanted to go. While the US was massing 150k troops nearby. What the US could have done was to slap UN arm bands on each and every US soldier and say that they were simply more UN inspectors. They could have just walked into IRAQ and take up the task of looking for WMD in a peacefull way - similar to the several hundred UN weapons inspectors already there. There would have been NO excuse that with 150k UN inspectors that the Iraqis could play a shell game with WMD. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ... You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it (especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on invading you). The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their WMD prior to any destruction of them. For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the appearance that they had not been destroyed? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |