HeyYou

All depends on whose definition of 'superfluous injury' you subscribe to. With such a broad term, that should also include things like tracers, hand grenades, land mines, anti-personell mines, and a host of other ordinance that is used on a daily basis by our military. And sure, so maybe they only shoot the multi-purpose ammo at vehicles, if you think there aren't people IN those vehicles at the time, that take damage from whatever penetrates their armor...... you are deluding yourself. The slugs travel approx 30 cm before detonation..... I don't know of many vehicles that have armor that thick...... aside from some that float. And what about depleted uranium? Shouldn't low level radiation ALSO be considered 'superfluous injury'? Of course, those are technically only fired at vehicles as well..... but, I haven't seen any A-10 pilots radioing the folks that they are about to unload on, to abandon their vehicle before they fire........ A lot of the 'agreements', 'treaties' etc, that are put into place by POLITICIANS, aren't really worth the paper they are printed on. It's patently obvious that the terrorists don't abide by ANY conventions. Suicide attacks against civilian targets has got to be covered in there somewhere....... But, its war. Bad things happen in war. Whether there is a treaty that says it shouldn't or not.

Scarily enough, I think you are correct..... I am not sure which one is the 'lesser' evil though.... I don't particularly care for either one.

Even some of the 'legitimate' fund raisers for charity's are scams..... Next time a telemarketer calls you, soliciting money for some charity or other, ask them just how much of each dollar donated the charity actually gets. On some of them, it's less than 10%....... You best course of action would be to donate DIRECTLY to the charities of your choice.

I don't like the use of trigger words are used in politics for two reasons. 1. Often they are trying to hid a lack of knowledge, or not wanting to show the whole picture 2. When enough people catch on to number 1, they will under react when the situation really is dire, or not give something important the attention it needs. Trigger words should alert you and make you look for real information to decide for yourself if this really is important, or if they are just trying to sell you something. Crying wolf? Politicians use trigger words to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. (and thereby, supposedly making them look more 'reasonable'....) It's one of those words that has developed negative connotations, and it seems to be 'in vogue' at the moment. Next month, it will be something else. (or, maybe 'next election'... who knows..... it's a lot like womens skirts, hem lines go up and down, as do the relevance of certain words.) Was crying wolf directed at me or what I was explaining? but yeah I agree with the negative connotations part, I meant to include in my last post that using "trigger words" are not inherently bad things but depend on the context in which they are used. Btw... is there any actual term for what these words are called, I'm not sure if trigger word is actually correct, that is just what the instructor of my public speaking course called them. Sorta, more agreeing with you. Politicians wear a word out, to the point that when it is used in a literal sense, and is actually accurate, folks just ignore it, as they have heard it so many times before.

I don't like the use of trigger words are used in politics for two reasons. 1. Often they are trying to hid a lack of knowledge, or not wanting to show the whole picture 2. When enough people catch on to number 1, they will under react when the situation really is dire, or not give something important the attention it needs. Trigger words should alert you and make you look for real information to decide for yourself if this really is important, or if they are just trying to sell you something. Crying wolf? Politicians use trigger words to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. (and thereby, supposedly making them look more 'reasonable'....) It's one of those words that has developed negative connotations, and it seems to be 'in vogue' at the moment. Next month, it will be something else. (or, maybe 'next election'... who knows..... it's a lot like womens skirts, hem lines go up and down, as do the relevance of certain words.)

Erm, I was agreeing with you...... as in, No One follows the conventions to the letter. :D

It's a risk I'm willing to take, which is better than allowing it to stand and get to see what new intrusions his excellency will propose in a subsequent term. If this legislation stands he will be emboldened to try more of the same. And that is EXACTLY why I won't the supreme court to toss it. The precedent set here is just dripping with potential abuse. And god knows congress wouldn't be able to resist.....

Yep, Israel plays the anti-semitic card pretty freely and loosely. Say something against Israel, and you are automagically a Jew-hater...... Really, in my opinion, Israel is more a danger to Israel, than Iran is........

No one that I am aware of, or, they use a legal dance to make something prohibited by various agreements NOT illegal by redefining a term or two.......

Go for walks. It's a good place to start. Just walk a bit further each day. Doesn't have to be the same route either, go see something different once in while. Or, do what I did..... get a dog...... She is a tad demanding on the playing and walking thing, and since I have had her, I get a LOT more exercise....... :D

I still have this game installed, and still play on a regular basis. Do a few networked games, and kick my son's butt as well. :D

Mac IS a flavor of unix......

He SAID he was going to do a fair few things. He said he was going to concentrate on jobs..... and what did we get? Several years of high unemployment, that we are STILL struggling with, and very few of the things he said he was going to do, have actually come to pass. Of course, I really shouldn't have expected anything different, he is, first and foremost, a politician.

Yeah, Obama really stuck his tongue in the blender with that crack.... for a constitutional scholar...... that was a MAJOR misstep.... (or, is that an honorary title??)

Is that from The Blues Brothers movie? I can't tell... too small. :D

Anything worth doing, is worth OVER-doing. :D

This sidetrack should show you why Healthcare is not a power of the federal government. It isn't listed under the specific powers of the federal government such as to provide and maintain a Navy. This is clearly define while general welfare is nowhere define. The SC can not interpretate the Constitution and even in Marbury vs. Madison i can't find any line which chance that fact. Its again just about acts of congress and laws but never ever the Constitution itself. And it doesn't matter if this Document was written 200, 300 or 800 Years ago becaus the basic principles do not chance. Government can't do it, end of the story. Doesn't many everyone else can't do it. So if you think the Constitutional Lawyer Obama, which violated the Constitution ongoing since he was elected, is just implement whats written in the Constitution with this Obamacare thing, why shouldn't we all get I-pots and Mobiles and TVs and Playstations and Cars and Big Houses. That could be interpretat as Welfare, so lets tax everyone to get everyone a Playstation. Wrong angle. The health care bill is REQUIRING folks to purchase a product provided by private industry. THAT is the main sticking point. DOES Congress have the power to TELL you that you MUST buy something, or be taxed? More apropos would be the fed requiring us to BUY an iPod, Mobile phone, and/or a playstation, to help bolster the economy. If everyone was legally required to buy a house, wouldn't that do wonders for the housing market???? Wouldn't that "help" the 'general welfare" of the nation?

If the shoe fits..post. Edit..didn't see your subsequent edit..I await with baited breath. :whistling: You shouldn't eat worms..... then your breath wouldn't be 'baited'...... :D Initially, I WAS pro-administration. I voted for the guy after all. Once in office though, it was simply a continuation of bush jr.s policies..... Needless to say, I was just a tad disappointed..... No clue what I am going to do come November...... I certainly don't want Romney in office.... I don't really want four more years of Obama either though.... Rock, meet hard place.. hard place, rock....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDQANmQO2g0

I don't play any games with you, this isn't how this works. If its not mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal Government can't do it and thats it. Really now?So, what about all those departments that the fed has set up over the last 100 years or so that aren't specifically mentioned? Seems the Fed believes otherwise. Also, if the Constitution is NOT to be 'interpreted', where does it define just what "the general welfare" is? Some would argue that the individual mandate in Obama-care falls under that particular line of text.

:D No, I do not think Obama-care is constitutional. I think they should just repeal it, and start over again. Most of what the current law contains was based on the premise that folks would HAVE to buy insurance. Without it, the rest of it fails. Some flavor of single payer system would be good, at least for things like basic care, and also for catastrophic care.... some of the gray areas in the middle could be optional......

Show me where it says then, that supreme court WILL NOT interpret the constitution. There's no mention of NASA either, does that make NASA unconstitutional?

Really? Then why is it, two supreme court justices can look at the same law, one thinks its fine, the other disagrees. How is that anything other than the justices interpreting the constitution?

What? You obvious didn't read the constitution otherwise you would know it better. And Medicare is also unconstitutional. Since nearly hundret years the Government of the USA operates unconstitutional because there were always well meaning idiots who tought "Oh i'am sure its for a good purpose". Yeah, yeah what i'am thinking. And ofcourse don't forgett the "Universal healthcare or death" stuff. For being unconstitutional, they have both sure been around for quite some time....... where are the Supreme court challenges to have it scrapped? I suppose, it all depends on the individuals interpretation...... unfortunately, the 'individuals' we elect to represent us, don't seem to care overmuch about the constitutionality of the various laws they pass, else, Obama-care would never have been signed into law. Convincing congress to stick with what they are legally allowed is pretty much a lost cause. They will do whatever they want, and leave it to the courts to sort out what's ok, and what isn't. But, even at that, it seems that various folks seem to think that just because congress passes it, and the president signs it, the supreme court should simply accept it...... Wonder if they are familiar with the term "checks and balances"..... Techically, social security is unconstitutional as well.....

And the only space for this living and breathing thing is the amendment process. But this is just for giving people more rights. It is no right to be a burden on someone else wallet and let him pay for someone else medical bill. Constitution is clear about that, if you want Healthcare vote on a States Level for it. Or pack your grab and move to the socialistic paradise of the EUSSR were everyone gets federal healthcare and has to pay for it his hole life. And please don't bore me with this "The Constitution is outdated" stuff because its not. Read it first, because you didn't. The Postal Clause under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution was established at the Second Continental Congress 1775. And many people were against that because they predicts that this will become a waste of taxe money. And today the Postal Office is bankrupt. You make some pretty bold assumptions about someone that you have no clue about........ not a good plan. And you are ALREADY paying for everyone else's health care, if you live in the states. Who do you think pays for medicare/medicaid? Who do you think pays for all the folks that DON'T pay their medical bills? So, according to your theory on health care, if you can't afford it, you should just drop dead so you are not a 'burden' on the rest of society?