rehmwa 2 #26 October 1, 2007 "Hillary" wants to give us $5000????? If that's the case, she can do whatever she wants with her money. It's her to give away how she sees fit. I bet it's really that Hillary wants the Government to distribute tax moneys from the general fund taken from the working population - to people with a kid in the amount of $5000. Including all administrative costs in doing so, etc. What's the point? Wouldn't it be easier to just approve a law that allows anyone with a kid to mug people around them until they reach the $5000 mark? It would take away the middleman. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 October 1, 2007 Quote"Hillary" wants to give us $5000????? If that's the case, she can do whatever she wants with her money. It's her to give away how she sees fit. I bet it's really that Hillary wants the Government to distribute tax moneys from the general fund taken from the working population - to people with a kid in the amount of $5000. Including all administrative costs in doing so, etc. What's the point? Wouldn't it be easier to just approve a law that allows anyone with a kid to mug people around them until they reach the $5000 mark? It would take away the middleman. Why not just issue a "door to door solicitors" permit to the parents and allow them to get the money for themselves? That would eliminate the middleman and allow those who gave money to deduct it from their taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 October 1, 2007 QuoteWhy not just issue a "door to door solicitors" permit to the parents and allow them to get the money for themselves? That would eliminate the middleman and allow those who gave money to deduct it from their taxes. that would work - I mean, people are "Happy to Give". right? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy not just issue a "door to door solicitors" permit to the parents and allow them to get the money for themselves? That would eliminate the middleman and allow those who gave money to deduct it from their taxes. that would work - I mean, people are "Happy to Give". right? Heck yeah. Why limit it to just $5000? Offer a tax incentive and we can all educate our children for free. Isn't the purpose of government to provide things for free? . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #30 October 1, 2007 >Offer a tax incentive and we can all educate our children for free. What nonsense! Imagine, a tax cut to help kids get educated! The rich need that money FAR more than kids do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly. No... the equivalent would be this: A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him. It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though. You can debate what it WAS until you turn blue. What it was NOT was a formal declaration of war as called for in the Constitution. Neither was Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo ... your point being?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 October 1, 2007 Quote>Offer a tax incentive and we can all educate our children for free. What nonsense! Imagine, a tax cut to help kids get educated! The rich need that money FAR more than kids do. Damn straight!!! I'd give some money to my neighbor if he knocked on my door and explained that by me giving money for his kid to go to college I could write it off. Not enough tax breaks out there these days. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 October 1, 2007 Quote>Offer a tax incentive and we can all educate our children for free. What nonsense! Imagine, a tax cut to help kids get educated! The rich need that money FAR more than kids do. You can't do that. Next thing you know, companies will offer to give education benefits to their employees' kids. We can't just give tax cuts to companies. They're evil. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #34 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly. No... the equivalent would be this: A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him. It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though. You can debate what it WAS until you turn blue. What it was NOT was a formal declaration of war as called for in the Constitution. Neither was Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo ... your point being? My point is obvious.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuote>Offer a tax incentive and we can all educate our children for free. What nonsense! Imagine, a tax cut to help kids get educated! The rich need that money FAR more than kids do. You can't do that. Next thing you know, companies will offer to give education benefits to their employees' kids. We can't just give tax cuts to companies. They're evil. No..no..no..tax cuts are evil, remember? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly. No... the equivalent would be this: A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him. It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though. You can debate what it WAS until you turn blue. What it was NOT was a formal declaration of war as called for in the Constitution. Neither was Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo ... your point being? My point is obvious. Can you please take the Bush bashing, anti war obsession to another thread? I mean really, it gets a little old when it constantly creeps into every thread. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #37 October 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly. No... the equivalent would be this: A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him. It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though. You can debate what it WAS until you turn blue. What it was NOT was a formal declaration of war as called for in the Constitution. Neither was Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo ... your point being? My point is obvious. Can you please take the Bush bashing, anti war obsession to another thread? I mean really, it gets a little old when it constantly creeps into every thread. . Try to take your whine to the right person. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2964252#2964252... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 October 1, 2007 Oh, I see. "She started it" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #39 October 1, 2007 Quote Oh, I see. "She started it" If you wish to whine, at least do it properly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #40 October 1, 2007 >No..no..no..tax cuts are evil, remember? Come now. Tax cuts are evil only when taxes are cut on the poor. Then it's an "unfair redistribution of wealth." When taxes on the rich are cut, it's "allowing people to keep more of their hard earned money." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #41 October 4, 2007 Quote Sorry again. The resolution reads, in part: -------- (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Billvon, Billvon, Billvon...who's payroll are you on man? I see you conveniently skipped to sec. 3 part two. You should try reading all of it. See I can copy and paste too. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by IRAQ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding IRAQ. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by IRAQ or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding IRAQ; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #42 October 4, 2007 >Billvon, Billvon, Billvon...who's payroll are you on man? I get millions of dollars a day from the Society to Destroy America and End Everything Good in the World. That's why I'm so rich. >I see you conveniently skipped to sec. 3 part two. Ah. Perhaps your confusion stems from not understanding what the term "in part" means. It means that the quoted section is a small part of the whole. But let's go over these point by point since you feel they are important: >defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by IRAQ . . . There was no threat from Iraq. And in any case, the president is ALREADY authorized to defend the US against all enemies. Next. > reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful >means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security > of the United States against the continuing threat posed by IRAQ . . See above. No threat. Next! > (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations >Security Council resolutions regarding IRAQ; and Turns out Saddam DID disarm. Next! >acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United > States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions >against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including >those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, >committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September >11, 2001. Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Next! So that's three strikes against you, there. Actually four. But feel free to quote some more sections if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joedirt 0 #43 October 4, 2007 Nice spin, but it's pretty obvious that the resolution specified Iraq. Just because the government screwed the pooch on this one doesn't change what they voted for. Thanks for implying i'm stupid for disagreeing with you though... I thought this was supposed to be fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #44 October 4, 2007 >Just because the government screwed the pooch on this one doesn't >change what they voted for. And just because they said the CinC is responsible for defending the country does not mean they declared war on anyone - and does not change the constitution, which is quite clear on the issue. >Thanks for implying i'm stupid for disagreeing with you though... I >thought this was supposed to be fun. Sorry - I figured you were having fun insulting me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
