US bounty on Charles Taylor

sovtek

Please!

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
I'd define national sovereignty as the legitimate right of a specific group (who identify themselves as a nation)and/or the leaders of that group to control a specific piece of territory. It ties in fairly nicely with the definition adopted by the Montevideo Convention on sovereignty in 1933, which formally defined what a sovereign state was, in a way with which virtually all legal scholars agree.

I'd be interested to hear how you currently define sovereignty, even keeping in mind that for some reason you have decided it's an item with a liquid definition, presumably depending on a person's politics. My definition, incidentally, doesn't change. It's a definition that takes into account different kinds of government, imposed boundaries, boundary disputes, actual states and states that don't exist even though they probably should. The key words are "legitimate right".

The definition you gave for national sovereignty is SOVEREIGNTY. Most political philosophers have tried to use interchangeably "sovereignty" and "national sovereignty." However, national sovereignty, correctly interpreted, is the application of how a sovereign nation acts within oneself and within a defined community: that is to say how does one define "best interests of a nation." The best interests application is constantly changing given the inter political and economic makeup of the country through its sovereign laws, regs, and/or public opinion/support.

So (back on topic) which particular Monroe doctrine are you talking about then (I've only listed the main four revisions)? None of them really extended sovereignty, even between 1904 and 1928. Not even the imaginery extra sovereignty that must have kept people in foreign affairs wet at night. Back to that "legitimate right" bit again.

I was using the original intent, as you described, with the Monroe Doctrine.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
But it depends on how one defines "subsidizing" now doesn't it Sovtek. If you want to be very broad and use tax breaks and credits as subsidizing (part of Nader's definition), then you must also include the tax breaks and credits for individuals as well. Corporate welfare is, in my definition, direct subsidies. There is no uniform definition of what defines "corporate welfare" and almost every definition is a slippery slope based on one's political agenda. And until a uniform definition of "welfare" that can be applied to both to businesses and individuals, true reform will never take place.

Being well off topic and being well tired of this thread....
My point was that America is no different than Europe in that it subsidizes directly or indirectly major industries. You asserted that America's economy is decided by "consumers" or the "free-market". You haven't addressed that in your current post.

Most of getting ready for trial in the next couple of months. The only high profile CEO currently on trial is the former CEO of Tyco but I do not believe a verdict is in yet.

You've just given evidence of my point. It's telling that a sniper was caught, tried and sentenced to death well in advance of the biggest corporate criminal scandals in history.

Furthermore, the SEC is not a traditional regulatory agency.

Don't know how you came to that but if true then it's obvious there needs to be a strong one put in place.

There needs to be a delicate balance between regulation and enforcement powers and individual freedom.

Corporations are not individuals.

You CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Additionally, there is no amount of regulation that can "prevent crime."

My original argument (in response to your assertion of the opposite) is that America isn't a bastion of bearing responsibility when it comes to corporate crime or individual crime for that matter if you are of the right people. You've done nothing to dispel that here.

Medicare, probably the most regulated program in the federal government, still has fraud ocurring at $100 billion per year.

And who's propagating the fraud, the individual or the corporation? In any case I seriously doubt $100 billion, but then look at Halliburton's history of fraud alone. Still who's paying for their "bad decisions" and whose not?

As far as GWB is concerned, he affliction was alcohol, not illicit drugs.

Nope he had a problem with cocaine as well.

But he has also turned around on his alcoholism. He does not drink alcohol anymore, but acknowledges that he had a problem and corrected it long before he came into political sprectrum.

According to him he doesn't drink anymore. How many jobs did hold before then?

But then again, you have former President Clinton stating, "I smoked, but never inhaled" definition of marijuana.

My only problem with that is that he wasted it.
Clinton never had a drug problem though did he? What's your point? If he did and still gained the office or president, then my argument still holds. It is who you are or who your daddy was.

However, the simple fact remains that certain conditions can lead a person to turn to drugs or alcohol.

And one prime factor is poverty...still holding that economics are a factor in drug use and their effects.

Illicit drug use comes from a different persona. Most has to do with the social rebellion theory, to be nonconformist, but it is also very addictive much like most pain medicines like morphine, codine, and others.

What is also very addictive?
Ummmm yeah ok...I guess all those junkies just wanted to be rebels.

All federal laws are based on the Constitution. The application of the Constitution is what seperates political parties in the United States. Some have a very broad view and some have a very limited view. The specific powers authorizing Congress of which bills it can pass and which it cannot are located in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the Constitution. They include:

And your response doesn't provide a clue in hell how you connect the Consitution to welfare reform or specifically the question Vader originally asked you and you came back spouting cryptic references to the Constitution.

Wefare reform: It is better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish Sovtek. It still does not explain the how in the hell the author came up with the conclusion that they did.

And this is supposed to refute what argument?

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Being well off topic and being well tired of this thread....
My point was that America is no different than Europe in that it subsidizes directly or indirectly major industries. You asserted that America's economy is decided by "consumers" or the "free-market". You haven't addressed that in your current post.

I will agree that the US and Europe have some similarities. However, there are a great many differences, economically speaking, between the US and Europe. IF you want a very simplistic answer, then the prevailing economic theory in Europe is Keynesian while in the US is monetarist. Keynesian is more in line with command economies than that with monetarist. However, you used the term "coporate welfare" with such a broad definition that even individuals, argued reasonably, are subsidized as well. I was arguing for a more stricter definition and thus refuting your argument. You refused to even acknowledge even that there are many definitions of corporate welfare.

You've just given evidence of my point. It's telling that a sniper was caught, tried and sentenced to death well in advance of the biggest corporate criminal scandals in history.

You are comparing apples ot oranges, Sovtek. The financial transactions that were done, via Arthur Anderson et al, was extremely complicated and circumstancial. The investigations had to follow the paper trail in order to ensure no other reasonable explanation could be explained in trial. Hence the longer investigation period. If you had resonable explainations to the transactions, then the juries will have reasonable doubt not to convict the former CEO's, CFO's, and COO's.

Corporations are not individuals.

Both are continuous entities, Sovtek and have very similar "rights and previledges."

My original argument (in response to your assertion of the opposite) is that America isn't a bastion of bearing responsibility when it comes to corporate crime or individual crime for that matter if you are of the right people. You've done nothing to dispel that here.

In every place I have been, there is corruption everywhere. That has always been my argument. However, I always maintain my faith in the judicial system and trust the juries that make the right decision. It is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with the jurors decision because you were not there listening to all of the evidence and may have been swayed to the judicial proceedings or news media in analyzing the lawyers tactics.

And who's propagating the fraud, the individual or the corporation? In any case I seriously doubt $100 billion, but then look at Halliburton's history of fraud alone. Still who's paying for their "bad decisions" and whose not?

Does it really matter if it is corporations or individuals? Fraud is fraud sovtek. Howver, circumstances involving the fraud differentiate the cases

Nope he had a problem with cocaine as well.

Those allegations have never been independently verified. Unless of course you believe in everything the internet and print media dish up.

According to him he doesn't drink anymore. How many jobs did hold before then?[.B]

And I take it you were always an angel, weren't you. LOL I do not have a problem when hiring someone who has had a past problem and now has rebounded and controlled their vice. I do have a problem hiring someone who continues to have the problem that could affect their work. That is where I draw the line.

My only problem with that is that he wasted it.
Clinton never had a drug problem though did he? What's your point? If he did and still gained the office or president, then my argument still holds. It is who you are or who your daddy was.

Personally, I do not believe in asking any candidate whether they had tried drugs at one time or not. I do have a problem if they are using those illicit drugs or have created laws and regs to make illicit drugs easier to obtain.

And one prime factor is poverty...still holding that economics are a factor in drug use and their effects.

But poverty is never the instigating factor to drinking or drugs sovtek. It is only a backdrop. Primary factors, from the studies, have concluded a host of reasons, one I have mentioned, but never have they exclusively mentioned poverty as a primary factor. IF you want, I could give you some sources that I used to answer this question.

What is also very addictive?
Ummmm yeah ok...I guess all those junkies just wanted to be rebels.

See my point above.

And your response doesn't provide a clue in hell how you connect the Consitution to welfare reform or specifically the question Vader originally asked you and you came back spouting cryptic references to the Constitution.

Apparently, you must have failed civics class. Vader did ask me why the US could not do more with its welfare. I answered quite simply it is based on Constitutional Law. The federal government cannot dictate or even prescribe

And this is supposed to refute what argument?

I guess you would rather just give fish rather than teach them how to fish, huh Sovtek.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
I will agree that the US and Europe have some similarities. However, there are a great many differences, economically speaking, between the US and Europe. IF you want a very simplistic answer, then the prevailing economic theory in Europe is Keynesian while in the US is monetarist. Keynesian is more in line with command economies than that with monetarist.

Beating a dead horse this is....and soooooo offtopic, but I'lll do it for little longer cause I'm bored anyway:

And what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
Yes there are differences, Europe puts more into social programs than "defence" in a general sense. That doesn't even suggest that America is a "market economy" any more than Europe is.

I was arguing for a more stricter definition and thus refuting your argument.

So you decide the definitions and then claim victory. :rolleyes:

You are comparing apples ot oranges, Sovtek. The financial transactions that were done, via Arthur Anderson et al, was extremely complicated and circumstancial. The investigations had to follow the paper trail in order to ensure no other reasonable explanation could be explained in trial. Hence the longer investigation period. If you had resonable explainations to the transactions, then the juries will have reasonable doubt not to convict the former CEO's, CFO's, and COO's.

In a sense you are correct, but you'll notice that someone that committs a crime like marijauna possession is far more likely to receive a jail sentence than a CEO involved in a corporate scandal that was so detrimental to so many. And then there were so many to follow.
Oh and unless they go bankrupt they get to continue doing business.

Both are continuous entities, Sovtek and have very similar "rights and previledges."

How is a human a continuous entity? And no corporations do not have the same rights. Corporations are there by license.

In every place I have been, there is corruption everywhere. That has always been my argument.

No your argument was that it doesn't matter who your father and if I recall correctly your social status in America as opposed to Europe.

Does it really matter if it is corporations or individuals? Fraud is fraud sovtek. Howver, circumstances involving the fraud differentiate the cases

And even though it costs us more corporate fraud is much less severly punished and more weakly regulated.

Those allegations have never been independently verified. Unless of course you believe in everything the internet and print media dish up.

Nope but then he would never outright deny it either.

And I take it you were always an angel, weren't you. LOL I do not have a problem when hiring someone who has had a past problem and now has rebounded and controlled their vice. I do have a problem hiring someone who continues to have the problem that could affect their work. That is where I draw the line.

So what about those jobs he had when he had a problem. I don't care about it either but it's just proof that it does matter who you are or who your daddy is.
Furthermore Bush has increased penalties for drug users.....

Personally, I do not believe in asking any candidate whether they had tried drugs at one time or not. I do have a problem if they are using those illicit drugs or have created laws and regs to make illicit drugs easier to obtain.

Neither do I what about when they have had a problem with those drugs and then sign legislation that gives harsher punishment for what they have done themselves?

But poverty is never the instigating factor to drinking or drugs sovtek. It is only a backdrop.

My point was that it is a factor and also has more detriment than someone in a well off financial position. I'm not sure what instigating means here.

Primary factors, from the studies, have concluded a host of reasons, one I have mentioned, but never have they exclusively mentioned poverty as a primary factor. IF you want, I could give you some sources that I used to answer this question.

From one of "the studies" study

Apparently, you must have failed civics class. Vader did ask me why the US could not do more with its welfare. I answered quite simply it is based on Constitutional Law. The federal government cannot dictate or even prescribe

Ignoring the initial muppetry (sorry I dig that term) you have yet to connect the constitution and how it relates to welfare or more detail....how it prevents the government doing more.

I guess you would rather just give fish rather than teach them how to fish, huh Sovtek.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

Vader

Greetings all. Hope ye enjoyed the holidays regardless of religions. Now where did I leave off...

Originally posted by Geromino
You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

Originally posted by Zaphod B
It's good to see that hilarious one-liners did not die with Bob Hope
That is possibly the most laughable comment I have read on these boards in months. If your comment were true then George Bush would surely be the most hard-working man in the USA, the man more dedicated than any other man in the nation to the cause of representing the people of said nation. Do you want us to believe he is that man? Do you honestly expect us to believe that all his life, George Bush has worked his ass off to achieve the goal of representing the people of the USA?

You're right, in the USA you are what you make of yourself. African-Americans, Hispanic Amerians, Asian-Americans, WOMEN... clearly they're just not working hard enough. Would Native American tribes have not been driven off their land if only they'd put some effort in? Sigh.

While you are on the right track Zaphod you’re not being fair to geromino. Geromino is part of a very unfortunate race that has been pumped so full of propaganda that he cant help spewing such incredible rubbish. However you cant simply tell him its rubbish like you could a nonamerican because he has been indoctrinated not to believe you and label you an anti American. This is very unfortunate and sad but its not geromino’s fault.

The BS Americans tell you about selfmade men goes back to Horatio Alger and his tales of success. He was the original author of the rags-to-riches tale. These tales had a great effect on work morale and productivity and so news broadcasters were encouraged by business to air such fantastic stories as often as possible. Alas but they are nonsense. The American economy is constructed to keep the poor poor and make the rich richer. In the average american household the parents have 3 jobs. Now in a situation like that the children become neglected and all the problems associated with poverty such as health problems, crime and long term unemployment develop. The US gov could prevent this with decent free education but they don’t, so the next generation ends up with 3 jobs again and so the spiral continues.
Whats the deal with 3 jobs anyway? A lot of irish households have only one working parent and he/she has only 1 job. Why? The average CEO of a EU manufacturing firm earns 13 times as much as the average employee. In America the CEOs earn 411 times more. This is not equitable and creates a massive 2 tier system. The rich are also helped by a lovely system of deductible interest. In short they can take out investments and assurance policies and never have to pay interest or suffer losses as they can be written off against tax. If you are born into money it is impossible to lose it.
Geromino I want you to look at that, keeping in mind it’s the tip of the ice burg. Is any part of it a lie. Is it in keeping with your statement.
Now answer this question. Is it possible that Americans may be being bombarded with false information or fairy tales to keep them content? Rich Americans want the poor to give them tax breaks and not put pressure on them to change this inequality because they think one day the rich bástard might be me or my son.

Originally posted by bonkey
By what yardstick do you judge it to be more accurate? I'm not knocking the resource (I haven't had a chance to read it yet), but I'm just curious as to how you are coming to that conclusion? The accounts differ, sure, but what makes your choice of source more accurate as opposed to just alternate?

Originally posted by Geronimo
Personal preference.

So you are actually saying that you are discrediting a source because you don’t like what it says.
You cant handle the truth. You cant think of a reason why, you just cant. That is a text book definition of indoctrination. Hitler came to power by indoctrinating the german ppl. The system in America is very dangerous if intelligent ppl like yourself cant question the system.
Very Orwellian don’t you think?

Originally posted by Geronimo
National sovereignty is not limited to within ones own border. It is defined by a variety of public opinion, political prowess, national law, and economic necessity or conveivence. However, no one method solely defines national sovereignty.

National sovereignty is defined as the power and right of the national legislator to run the affairs of the territory of said country and to protect said people from invasion. That is a definition and is not open to interpretation. Convience of say oil reserves are not an issue of national security.
Do you believe that changing what a word means is justification for a war? IS this not an elaborate way of lying?

Originally posted by Geronimo
If we are bound as you stated, then it acts like a government. If we are bound, then how does that relate to the Constitution, or does it become irrelevant or subserveant. If it is an organization, then each nation can choose to participate, follow, reject, or not to participate in the organization. So which is it

We are bound by treaty. Thus it is part of our constitution. The US constitution makes reference to upholding all treaties it enters into.

Originally posted by Geronimo
When it comes to UN resolutions, I am speaking of national sovereignty. As I stated with Sovtek, national sovereignty includes national interests beyond ones border. National sovereignty changes when the geopolitical and geoeconomic conditions change. It was the best interest for the US to follow those resolutions when most other nations, based on their national sovereignty, did not want to follow those resolutions

Hold on there. Don’t give me some BS that you don’t know what national sovereignty is when you’ve already been given a good definition. You quoted 2 UN resolutions(even though that’s rather hypocritical seeing as you have no time for the UN and the US breaks resolutions all the time, but Ive outlined all that before and you simply ignored it) which you claim backed up the case for war on National sovereignty grounds. That was either misinformation are a blatent lie as neither of those two resolutions had anything to do with war or National sovereignty.
Either admit that you were mistaken or argue the legality or interpretation of the resolutions. Don’t spout BS.

Originally posted by Geronimo
More precisely, Iraq claimed to give unfettered access, but in reality, did not give such access to the inspectors. There were several UN resolutions that declared Iraq in material breach. Not exactly irrelevant.

You are quoting Condeliza Rice and she was referring to a statement made back in the 1990’s. She was caught out, yet you still quote her?
I can get American channels here in Ireland, I can read American newspapers and books. And do you know what Ive learned? Well among other things Americans get little info on the outside world and think it must be the same in other countries. That American principals arnt adopted in other countries because there unknown, not because they are disgusting; and that if you do a misquote that I wont notice!

Originally posted by Geronimo
Will you condemn all of the big 5 for vetoing UN resolutions or only those countries that do not specifically agree with your political philoshophy?

AS I clearly said, all 5. But how often does france use its veto as a matter as interest?

Actually, SDI was prohibited by the ABM treaty set forth in 1972

Its still prohibited though, right?

As with Israel, it was a cooperation between South Africa and Isreal as far as Israel obtaining nuclear capability.

An elaborate paper trail, Saddam got some of his nerve gas from the Americans via the Saudis. You are thrown far too easily. It is the duty of the citizens of a democracy to maintain a healthy cynicism.

Again, undercutting by whose standards, Vader?

You really have poor English. No standards are necessary. To undercut means to curtail influence or to undermine decisions and actions. Constant vetoing and withholding funds and troops as well as negative media propaganda is undercutting.

Vader

The WTO is more equipped to handle economic issues than the world court Vader

Don’t twist my words. I was talking about the support the US gives to the WTO and the way it attacks and ignores the WC. Obviously they have 2 different functions but that of the WC is more important i mo thuarim.

The United States has a market economy (a possible definition of capitalism) where the government does not make the decisions for investment. It could encourage due course, through a variety of fiscal and monetary policies, but does not have any direct impact.

That deserves no comment other that “naive” .

It all depends on how one defines equal opportunity. Pouring more money into a system or forcing everybody to become equal, monetarily speaking, may not be the most equal of definitions. However, as I stated, the US does have the EEOC, labor relations acts, and other measures, both state and federal, in which those who make good decisions are generally rewarded and those who make bad decisions are not.

Go back and deal with the example I gave which you even quoted. You shouldnt ignore intelligent points, it reflects poorly on your own. I might think you were unable to counter the arguement. Have another try.

No Vader. Alcoholism has devestating effects on family, resources, etc. And more often than not, those personal decisions affect not only the individual, but all others arond them. It also has no bearing on economic analysis with labor, but has a profound impact on heathcare costs.

But they’re not all alcoholics!!!! How do you explain why honest, hardworking ppl with no addictions can still be the victums of poverty?

Actually, it is based on the Constitution Vader. There are explicit powers granted by the Constitution under Article 1, section 8, as well as the tenth admendment which seperates the powers from the state and federal government.

WTF? When did ye change the constitution?

There is a difference between a company sponsored pension plan and a government one. For example, if I were to work for Lockheed, I would be in the pension plan. But if I leave, that money is mine, not Lockheed's. If I was not fully vested, then I could transfer that money into another retirement account. If I was fully vested, then I would need to wait until minimum retirement age to draw on the retirement plan. I could also have more than one retirement plan when I work for Lokcheed or other companies. Social security is the only government security. Furthermore, there are different retirment plans such as Inidivual Retirement Accounts, Roth Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Market Accounts, and so forth. And more specifically, that money earns interest and can be withdrawn ealier for specified purposes

Way off the point, not what I was saying at all. This becomes a topic of discussion between you and sovtec. I was refering to the privatisation of welfare of which Lockheed is now the provider of.

You might want to tell that to the fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims in a place called Kashmir and see what their result would be.

What might they do if I told them I never met a fundamentalist Buddist? Enlighten me.

I have read a couple of his works, but I have also found him to be less credible when it comes to politics. He is respected as a linquist, but not as a political philosopher, at least here in the states.

His political work is nearly all about the states and its international policy. You can check any history book for the source. There is little guess work. He doest give what he believes to be the motivation for any of it. He gives you the cold hard facts and most ppl reach the same conclusion. If you dont like the conclusion you cant blame him. You arrived at it. Perhaps your not completly lost. Perhaps.

My anaology was the reference in which you are casually observing and based your conclusion on that casual observation even though numerous other reasons could exist. The point was that a more detailed analysis would needed to be entailed. And if you saw one hundred people doing the same thing, then what would your conclusions be, Vader?

Are we getting on to the coalition of the willing ‘caus if we are there s alot I could say about that. Most doctors can tell simply from the symptoms a person has what their problem is. They have knowledge of the subject at hand. When it comes to politics, I am well versed in theory and practice. We went over this before and even got a third persons opinion. I am qualified to draw conclusions from repeated action. Do you remember the big long discussion we had about history and you eventually said I was right but not being fair.

Originally posted by Sovtec Actually he does but the corporate media heads that he often criticizes aren't about to tell you that.
It's another thread, but I'd love to hear instances of debunked Chomsky

All comes bact to my points on propaganda and indoctrination.

Originally posted by Geronimo
A company pension is welfare, Sovtek? That has to be the most rediculous business notion I have ever heard. On the contrary, a company pension is not welfare for simply it is based on your time in service with that specific company. If you are not fully vested in the pension plan sovtek, which is normally five years, you have the option to withdraw the funds and transfer them to another retirement account. Retirement accounts can include savings acounts, IRA, qualified retirement plans, mutual funds, and other investment tools. If you are fully vested in the pension, then normally you will have to wait until the company's mandated minimum retirement age based your job description. It is quite simply, not welfare, but a retirement plan, or investment, given your earnings at that company, time in service, and life expectancy.

This has nothing to do with pensions. You dont know what we’re talking about. No wonder you are coning on about the constitution. Do some research. FFS!

Originally posted by Geronimo
Considering the fact that he is most often quoted by The Mirror, a European version of the National Enquirer, I will respond to Noam Chomsky's works on an individual basis.

Are you sure about that mirror thing? I find that too hard to believe off the cuff. Please provide some source for that then I will make a further reply. Thats amazing. Ive never read the mirror or think that I ever will yet I read about Chomsky all the time.

Originally posted by Geronimo
Most of getting ready for trial in the next couple of months.

Of enrons executives only 12 are awaiting trial. Billions were lost in pension funds and investments when enron went under as well as 20000 emplyee saving schemes. 144 of its top executives received a total of $310m in “compo” and $435 in stock. What #### were you spouting about rewardind decisions in life?Do you still stand by your earlier comment?

Vader

Originally posted by Geronimo

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How often to you need to be warned about BS overload. Yea you know a bit, is any of it relevant. No. We’re talking about social equality not fcking forts and Indians!! FFS!

Originally posted by Geronimo
Wefare reform: It is better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish Sovtek.

But that’s not what they do. That’s what the Irish do through FAS and it works. WE have 4% unemployment and over 50% of the country in the top income bracket. You give ppl menial labour and make it impossible to rebuild their life. Where’s the useful training? You don’t have a clue what your talking about when it comes to this topic. Your quoting soundbites that have no personal impact on you.

Originally posted by Geronimo
Both are continuous entities, Sovtek and have very similar "rights and previledges."

But Corporations are not individuals. Are they? Why cant you admit your wrong. Is it pride. I couldn’t care less. Im not going to rub it in. I acknowledge my mistakes all the time and Ive still got my creditability. Even more so in some eyes.

Originally posted by Geronimo
In every place I have been, there is corruption everywhere.

Does that make it right?

Originally posted by Geronimo
Apparently, you must have failed civics class. Vader did ask me why the US could not do more with its welfare. I answered quite simply it is based on Constitutional Law. The federal government cannot dictate or even prescribe

You didn’t answer the Q. You gave an irrelevant quote. The constitution doesn’t demand the state provide welfare but it doesn’t hinder it. Take some initiative.