On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:08:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:35:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:07:13 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:07:05 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:44:15 -0400, wrote:


and nowhere does it mention a SPECIFIC 'power' of education that is
prohibited.

sorry


You have that backward, Nowhere does it GIVE the power to the feds.

prove that this power is prohibited to the feds


I can't prove a negative.

precisely. which is why the constitution does not prohibit a US dept
of education

Obviously as long as the feds have the biggest guns and the most tax
payer funded lawyers, they will take any power they want. That does
not make it constitutional.

nor does it make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Lets just agree to disagree about creeping federalism. It is clear you
would want federal firemen, cops and garbage men.

state govts generally oppress human rights. only the feds have the
power to break local elites and get SOME measure of power for the
middle class...until the right wing and the rich hijack that as well

If you had your way
we would abolish all state and local government and nationalize all
the corporations.

really? got proof of that? oh. none.

Of course that makes you the fascist here but we know you think the
central socialist government knows best. It worked so well for the
Soviets.

more paranoia. need some more tin foil for your hat? seems the gamma
rays are getting through

All I ask is if the government is so good at doing things, why do we
have Fed Ex, and UPS?

and if the private sector is so great why do we have BP and the most
expensive healthcare in the world, and a stock market that just pulled
11 trillion dollars out of the net worth of the US?

The Post Office should have put them out of business.They still can't
compete with private companies in spite of a huge taxpayer subsidy.

ah. private companies. yes. the ones who, on the backs of the mddle
class, raised productivity by 28% in the last 10 years....

and gave none of this to the middle class in the form of h igher
wages...then wonders why the middle class has no money

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:10:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:37:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:09:18 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:





He professes to be a scientist and only deals in fact, yet on the other hand
resorts to labeling folks here with no basis in fact at all.



now let's see...virtually every single problem facing the US had its
origins in teh bush administration

yet the right refuses to say a single word about bush, instead blaming
EVERYTHING on the black president

now....why would they excuse a WHITE guy and blame a BLACK guy....

nah...couldnt be race...

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:39:23 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:09:18 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:





He professes to be a scientist and only deals in fact, yet on the other
hand
resorts to labeling folks here with no basis in fact at all.



now let's see...virtually every single problem facing the US had its
origins in teh bush administration

yet the right refuses to say a single word about bush, instead blaming
EVERYTHING on the black president

now....why would they excuse a WHITE guy and blame a BLACK guy....

nah...couldnt be race...

The only problem with your post is bringing in the color card. Where would
your argument go it the current president was Caucasian and a democrat AND
the economic were the same?

and would the right be blaming a white president like they blame
obama?

nope.

In article ,
says...

On 8/8/10 6:24 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:07:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:44:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:19:38 -0400, wrote:

meaningless. nothing the feds are doing is prohibited. what is
specifically 'not delegated'?

The Constitution is about Power, the Bill of right is about Rights.
If the federal government is not given a particular Power in the body
of the Constitution, the Right to administer that is granted to the
states by the 10th amendment.

and nowhere does it mention a SPECIFIC 'power' of education that is
prohibited.

sorry


You have that backward, Nowhere does it GIVE the power to the feds.


in a manner of speaking, yes. unlike you, i'm a scientist. i think
rationally. i go with EVIDENCE


OK the EVIDENCE is in. The department of education is not effective.

the EVIDENCE is that local school board control is ineffective.

... and over 30 years of federal oversight has not fixed any of it.



you? you think like a child. you **** your diaper then want to blame
everyone else

the fact is local school board control does not work. it's a failure.

You were educated by a local school board.

what can i say. six sigma you know...

yep. i'm honored to say that i went to public school like most of the
middle class.

you? you're the spoiled brat of a privileged childhood who thinks the
middle class...and the black president...should know our place


I grew up in Southeast DC (the 9th ward now). I doubt you even
understand what that is or you wouldn't be blathering about "spoiled
brat of a privileged childhood". In fact my mother worked and I was
taken care of by a black woman (along with several black kids). That
is something Obama can't say.

and yet you despise him because he's black....

you must have hated your caretakers, too.

mom taught you that the darkies should always be servants, eh?

That is all you. Simply a figment of your imagination.
You are not a disgruntled beer truck driver are you?

Disgruntled my ass. He was a racist and when he got caught stealing
beer, clearly on tape and fired, he used the race card to excuse his
cowardly murder spree... So has the media.

I know liberals will believe he was harassed, simply because he said so
after killing 8 people (on the phone to the State Troopers). I mean,
look at what happened in Washington when those lying sack of ****
congressmen claimed racial slurs and spitting but with no less than 100
cameras going, not one person could find evidence of it even with a
reward of tens of thousands of dollars for the shot



Actually, several of us thought you were the shooter.

Really spoofer? Who exactly?

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:39:23 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:09:18 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:





He professes to be a scientist and only deals in fact, yet on the other
hand
resorts to labeling folks here with no basis in fact at all.



now let's see...virtually every single problem facing the US had its
origins in teh bush administration

yet the right refuses to say a single word about bush, instead blaming
EVERYTHING on the black president

now....why would they excuse a WHITE guy and blame a BLACK guy....

nah...couldnt be race...

The only problem with your post is bringing in the color card. Where
would
your argument go it the current president was Caucasian and a democrat AND
the economic were the same?

and would the right be blaming a white president like they blame
obama?

nope.

Pure speculation on your part.

In article ,
k says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:39:23 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:09:18 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:





He professes to be a scientist and only deals in fact, yet on the other
hand
resorts to labeling folks here with no basis in fact at all.



now let's see...virtually every single problem facing the US had its
origins in teh bush administration

yet the right refuses to say a single word about bush, instead blaming
EVERYTHING on the black president

now....why would they excuse a WHITE guy and blame a BLACK guy....

nah...couldnt be race...

The only problem with your post is bringing in the color card. Where
would
your argument go it the current president was Caucasian and a democrat AND
the economic were the same?

and would the right be blaming a white president like they blame
obama?

nope.

Pure speculation on your part.

Really, when you consider the fact that we did when we (white voters)
voted Obama in. We blamed Bush so much we voted for a Democrat...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

On 8/9/10 10:10 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


Really, when you consider the fact that we did when we (white voters)
voted Obama in. We blamed Bush so much we voted for a Democrat...


Now the little **** is saying he voted for Obama.

snerk

"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 8/9/10 10:10 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


Really, when you consider the fact that we did when we (white voters)
voted Obama in. We blamed Bush so much we voted for a Democrat...


Now the little **** is saying he voted for Obama.

snerk


Is that the way you read it? No wonder you are so ****ed up in the head.
Where does he say he, as an individual, voted for O'bama? You are a whole
lot dumber than you make yourself out to be.

On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can
be sheltered in any way.

On 8-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

The United States Constitution does not specifically prohibit your from
from
being the cover boy for "Idiot Monthly" so please post your picture here
so
you can be on the cover of the next issue.

IOW you have no argument.

thanks. i already knew that....

nothing to see here folks...move along.

HEY! I have a great deal I bet you'd be interested in. For a limited time
only, I'm offering autographed photos of The Invisible Man standing in front
of Niagra Falls. These are normally $69.95 but to you, I'll let let 'em go
for $39.95! How many you want?