Change you can believe in, Yeah

The Total Public Debt as of 03/31/2009 -

11,126,941,485,713.30

or in English -

eleven Trillion, one hundred twenty six billion, nine hundred forty one million, four hundred and eighty five thousand, seven hundred and thirteen dollars and thirty cents.

Based on the dollar bill being approximately 6 inches in length, laid end to end our national debt would amount to a length equal to 2,205 round trips between the earth and the moon, or 14 1/2 round trips to Mars.

If the national debt as of 03/31/2009 were paided off at the rate fo one dollar per second, it would require 352,833 years to pay off. At one million dollars per second, 21.17 years would be required to pay off the debt. That does not take into account interest accumulating on the debt, by the way.

Yes, sir the messiah Obamy and the baffoons in congress are doing a wonderful job, they with the blessing of most of the public, have taken this nation away from the next generation and the generation after that and the one after that and saddled them with debt they can never hope to repay.

Every individual who voted for these baffoons and the baffoons before them should be ashamed.

Cato

Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

ziggy wrote:Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

Neither man had a clue what the US Constitution said. Nadar was a socialist and Perot was just plain nuts. Neither man ever even spoke about what the US Cosntitution says.

Oh, but then I forgot, in your mind the US Constitution says whatever people want it to say.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

Neither man had a clue what the US Constitution said. Nadar was a socialist and Perot was just plain nuts. Neither man ever even spoke about what the US Cosntitution says.

Oh, but then I forgot, in your mind the US Constitution says whatever people want it to say.

Only the great Cato is capable of understanding what the New Testemant, and now the Constitution says. All dissenters with differing understandings are but dishonest heretics and traitors to the social gospel according to Cato.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

Neither man had a clue what the US Constitution said. Nadar was a socialist and Perot was just plain nuts. Neither man ever even spoke about what the US Cosntitution says.

Oh, but then I forgot, in your mind the US Constitution says whatever people want it to say.

Only the great Cato is capable of understanding what the New Testemant, and now the Constitution says. All dissenters with differing understandings are but dishonest heretics and traitors to the social gospel according to Cato.

There you go again being childish. Your own words speak for themselves and condemn you.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

Neither man had a clue what the US Constitution said. Nadar was a socialist and Perot was just plain nuts. Neither man ever even spoke about what the US Cosntitution says.

Oh, but then I forgot, in your mind the US Constitution says whatever people want it to say.

Only the great Cato is capable of understanding what the New Testemant, and now the Constitution says. All dissenters with differing understandings are but dishonest heretics and traitors to the social gospel according to Cato.

You can't give an example of what the constitution says and back it up with anything concrete other then to say it is a living document and the meaning changes.

You attempted once with the general Welfare clause and I showed the fallacy of the one example. I've also shown the only reason the New Deal was found constitutional was to protect the court and since that time, you've never been able to refute ONE argument I've put forth. Not one.

You're a loud mouth who tries to use volume to intimidate but unlike the rabbit, I don't cringe at your roar. I've shown you time and time again for the coward you truly are. Like you, Nader is a follower of the Marxist agenda which means he's either a socialist or a communist. Which is it?

You can't give an example of what the constitution says and back it up with anything concrete other then to say it is a living document and the meaning changes.

You need to get off that stuff, because you are hallucinating again- almost continuously these days. I have never said either of those things. And I disagree with those who do say them.

I do not pretend to have the one and only full understanding if the Constitution that you and Cato pretend you have. Mostly what I do is cite what the Courts say about questions of the law and of the Constitution- just as the Constitution prescribes.

You can't give an example of what the constitution says and back it up with anything concrete ..........

Unlike you and Cato, I usually back up what I say with references to and citations from Federal Court rulings. That is about as "concrete" as it can get, constitutionally.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Don't blame me. I voted for Perot. Then Perot again. Then Nader. Then Nader again.

Neither man had a clue what the US Constitution said. Nadar was a socialist and Perot was just plain nuts. Neither man ever even spoke about what the US Cosntitution says.

Oh, but then I forgot, in your mind the US Constitution says whatever people want it to say.

Only the great Cato is capable of understanding what the New Testemant, and now the Constitution says. All dissenters with differing understandings are but dishonest heretics and traitors to the social gospel according to Cato.

There you go again being childish. Your own words speak for themselves and condemn you.

Again, what is childish about it? Do you not assert that you have the correct interpretations of both the Constitution and of the New Testament. Or don't your own words speak for themselves?

ziggy wrote:

You can't give an example of what the constitution says and back it up with anything concrete ..........

Unlike you and Cato, I usually back up what I say with references to and citations from Federal Court rulings. That is about as "concrete" as it can get, constitutionally.

You're flat out wrong. The only arguments you’ve attempted to back up with your version of the constitution, I put right back in your face with the truth.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

You can't give an example of what the constitution says and back it up with anything concrete ..........

Unlike you and Cato, I usually back up what I say with references to and citations from Federal Court rulings. That is about as "concrete" as it can get, constitutionally.

You're flat out wrong. The only arguments you’ve attempted to back up with your version of the constitution, I put right back in your face with the truth.

Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

Nope. And you're still a coward.

I wonder if you even have convictions.

Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

And it can be changed by another or future court. There's can be a difference between legal and constitutional, which you don't seem to understand. But then, if it doesn't come from Karl, you don't follow it anyhow.

ziggy wrote:
Again, what is childish about it? Do you not assert that you have the correct interpretations of both the Constitution and of the New Testament. Or don't your own words speak for themselves?

Yes, as a matter of act I do. I long since have quit reading my prejustice and bias into them. Instead I allow them to speak to me and let the words say what they will. You on the other hand want to pick and choose what to accept and what to reject. You also want to allow others to tell you what botht he constitution and bible says. You told Aaron that the US Constitution says what the courts say it says. The courts are corruptable as are many preachers. Just because either says something is so, does not make it so.

And it can be changed by another or future court. There's can be a difference between legal and constitutional, which you don't seem to understand.

And the Constitution can be amended by this and future generations. So what is your point?

But then, if it doesn't come from Karl, you don't follow it anyhow.

You seem obsessed with this Karl guy, comrade Aaron. No wonder your marriage fell apart.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Again, what is childish about it? Do you not assert that you have the correct interpretations of both the Constitution and of the New Testament. Or don't your own words speak for themselves?

Yes, as a matter of act I do. I long since have quit reading my prejustice and bias into them.

Well congratulations on being- after several decades of life- a one of a kind unprejudiced and unbiased human being who sets aside everything he has ever experienced in life. You should have yourself cloned, then again, and again, etc. so we could have a world of perfectly unbiased and unprejudiced people.

Instead I allow them to speak to me and let the words say what they will.

There are a few hundred millions of other Americans, and billions world wide, who do it the same way. So what makes you so special that only you can get it right?

You on the other hand want to pick and choose what to accept and what to reject. You also want to allow others to tell you what botht he constitution and bible says. You told Aaron that the US Constitution says what the courts say it says.

Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The courts are corruptable as are many preachers. Just because either says something is so, does not make it so.

You are right about the preachers, but, constitutionally, you are wrong
about the Courts.

It does until either another Court says something else, or the Constitution is amended. Why? Because the Constitution says so.

I know I've got you when you go personal Frank. That's the kind of coward you are.

Aaron wrote:I know I've got you when you go personal Frank. That's the kind of coward you are.

Everything is personal with you, Aaron- politics, religion- you reduce it all to one personal snipe after another. So you gotta learn to take what you give. Get use to it.

Or, if you can't run with the big dogs without whining, stay under the porch.

You've whined and cried and bitched and moaned about corporations for years and I gave you the opportunity to discuss the topic and like Sherman, you refused to answer a very simple, very logical question. The only difference is you started playing word games whereas he just ignored the question.

And if anything is "personal" with me Ziggy, that's it. If you're going to say something then have the courage to back it up because if you don't, I won't extend the same respect to you I did to Sherman and his service. Your don't deserve it. I'll call you out for what you are, regardless of the the lack convictions you share with him and the the garbage you both post.

You’re a dog Frank but it ain’t a big one, it’s a female one and we both know it.

Aaron wrote:You've whined and cried and bitched and moaned about corporations for years and I gave you the opportunity to discuss the topic and like Sherman, you refused to answer a very simple, very logical question. The only difference is you started playing word games whereas he just ignored the question.

And if anything is "personal" with me Ziggy, that's it. If you're going to say something then have the courage to back it up because if you don't, I won't extend the same respect to you I did to Sherman and his service. Your don't deserve it. I'll call you out for what you are, regardless of the the lack convictions you share with him and the the garbage you both post.

You’re a dog Frank but it ain’t a big one, it’s a female one and we both know it.

Oh my! Are you dare complain about being personal?

Pure one, heal thyself first.

Aaron wrote:You've whined and cried and bitched and moaned about corporations for years and I gave you the opportunity to discuss the topic and like Sherman, you refused to answer a very simple, very logical question. The only difference is you started playing word games whereas he just ignored the question.

And if anything is "personal" with me Ziggy, that's it.

That's what I mean. Everything that you disagree with is personal to you.

That is your problem, not mine.

There was no disagreement. I ask a question about a subject that you've bitched about for years, and when I ask you for your opinion, you started the word games and refused to answer a simple question.

ziggy wrote:
Constitutionally, the "truth" is whatever the Courts say it is.

With that being the case, why do you complain about corporations? After all, the Supreme Court has said that corporations are "juridical person's" and as such are afforded the same rights and privileges under the constitution as any other person. One of those rights is to disperse one's money as one sees fit so if you're going to hold every court decision is such high esteem, it's only logical that you hush regarding corporations.

(1) The Supreme Court has not said that government cannot regulate corporations as strictly as it wants to- even as strictly it did in the first 80 or so years after the American Revolution.

(2) You miss my point- deliberately so I do believe- that if you are as opposed to socialism as you say you are, that you should be opposed to all socialism, including American Corporate Socialsim.