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 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

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

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

We need to give it up - he's either too you or too old to grasp the
constitution, or a union member. Or both.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:20:37 GMT, "Colonel Kurtz"
wrote:


On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

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

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

if it did, the GOP would disappear

On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too
bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

if it did, the GOP would disappear

The United States would disappear. As long as the non functional masses are
led by the nose to have childish battles over political syndicate names
(encouraged by the scum you elect and "news") Such mindless debate
successfully avoids the core subject matter, as you just proved.

In article ,
says...

On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too
bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

if it did, the GOP would disappear

The United States would disappear. As long as the non functional masses are
led by the nose to have childish battles over political syndicate names
(encouraged by the scum you elect and "news") Such mindless debate
successfully avoids the core subject matter, as you just proved.

It really gets me when retards like pubichair there spew the same lies,
over and over again, and consider it "intelligent debate". What I don't
understand is how with subjects so important to our future, folks like
he and Harry and the kind of people who run acorn, elected Franken,
etc.. can so intentionally lie and cheat and have no conscience or
remorse.

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

On 8/12/10 10:00 AM, I am Tosk wrote:

It really gets me when retards...

You should stop right there, since you are the ranking retard here.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:00:35 -0400, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too
bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

if it did, the GOP would disappear

The United States would disappear. As long as the non functional masses are
led by the nose to have childish battles over political syndicate names
(encouraged by the scum you elect and "news") Such mindless debate
successfully avoids the core subject matter, as you just proved.

It really gets me when retards like pubichair there spew the same lies,
over and over again, and consider it "intelligent debate". What I don't
understand is how with subjects so important to our future, folks like
he and Harry and the kind of people who run acorn, elected Franken,
etc.. can so intentionally lie and cheat and have no conscience or
remorse.

says the guy who thinks mcconnell, vitters, jindal, etc. are great
politicians

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:55:13 GMT, "Colonel Kurtz"
wrote:


On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too
bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

if it did, the GOP would disappear

The United States would disappear. As long as the non functional masses are
led by the nose to have childish battles over political syndicate names
(encouraged by the scum you elect and "news") Such mindless debate
successfully avoids the core subject matter, as you just proved.

let's see...the right wing teabaggers scream about hispanics
immigratin to america

while wall street sucks out the wealth of america...

you were saying?

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:54:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


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.


Only if they ignore the 10th amendment, but that is pretty much what
they did in the 50s and 60s.

IOW you have no answer other than to say you're right.


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.

Only from what you write, like the comment right above this one.

really? how's life in your parallel universe?


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?

Why weren't the government inspectors checking the BP rig?

why should they? deregulation, remember? the bad oil companies go
bankrupt...

oh...wait...the rich stacked the deck to limit liability so the
taxpayer gets stuck with the bill...

Our health care is so expensive because we use too much of it. People
get a hangnail and they end up with an MRI. You can't go to the doctor
without coming home with a couple bottles of pills. Most of the money
we spend is in keeping corpses alive for a few extra days. Did you
watch 60 minutes last Sunday?

aint free enterprise wonderful? almost sounds like you're arguing for
govt control of healthcare!


Why was the SEC asleep at the switch and why did Clinton force
Brooksley Born out when she warned us about the derivatives?

the SEC was asleep during the run up to this disaster under teh bush
administration...and you're absolutely correct; brooksley born got
screwed by a govt drunk on free market fundamentalism...

just like the tea baggers argue today...you know, the most right wing
of the right wing...


That is YOUR government ****ing up

and did the govt destroy 11 trillion in equity in the US in the last 3
years?

nope. that was WALL STREET.


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

Non responsive answer. Why does Fed Ex exist if the government is
always the best way of doing things?

never said they were the BEST. but the radical free market
fundamenatlism of the right wing DESTROYED this economy

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:03:15 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:38:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:54:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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?

Why weren't the government inspectors checking the BP rig?

why should they? deregulation, remember? the bad oil companies go
bankrupt...

oh...wait...the rich stacked the deck to limit liability so the
taxpayer gets stuck with the bill...

Because there was regulation, the government just chose not to enforce
it.

that is correct. shows what happens when corporations start tossing
the term 'socialist' at the pres...




Our health care is so expensive because we use too much of it. People
get a hangnail and they end up with an MRI. You can't go to the doctor
without coming home with a couple bottles of pills. Most of the money
we spend is in keeping corpses alive for a few extra days. Did you
watch 60 minutes last Sunday?

aint free enterprise wonderful? almost sounds like you're arguing for
govt control of healthcare!


In this case it IS government health care (Medicare)

ever hear of blue cross? aetna? kaiser? they're not medicare



Why was the SEC asleep at the switch and why did Clinton force
Brooksley Born out when she warned us about the derivatives?

the SEC was asleep during the run up to this disaster under teh bush
administration...and you're absolutely correct; brooksley born got
screwed by a govt drunk on free market fundamentalism...

just like the tea baggers argue today...you know, the most right wing
of the right wing...


The deregulation that allowed this happened in the 90s.

and the 80's under reagan with his 'smaller govt' fundamentalism



Non responsive answer. Why does Fed Ex exist if the government is
always the best way of doing things?

never said they were the BEST.

Write that down and refer to it before you respond again.

when the govt takes 11 trillion out of the economy in 3 years lke wall
street just did...

you be sure and let me know