Well...I know I hired you to manage my store...but what the ****...its OK you are a dismal failure...because the guy 30 years ago was ****ed too...
yeah...THATS a GREAT tactic!!!
I think what Redress was eluding to is you can't blame Pres. Obama for Detroit's economic problems when the city fell in decline long before he came into office. If you want to blame anyone for the city's problems, there's plenty of blame that should have been casts long ago.
Redress rightly was also trying to deflect from the ridiculous idea that somehow any laws, plans or policies enacted by the current President would somehow turn things around overnight. To use a dieter's analogy...it took a long time for the individual to put on the weight; it's gonna take a long time to take the weight off. Same thing applies here.
Detroit and other economically depressed cities didn't just fall into decline from the inaction or wrongful actions of just one person. It's going to take alot to get such economically depressed cities back on their feet. It starts w/the city planners getting their citizens involved and with their policy makers to find ways to bring new businesses to their area that promote job creation and job growth. But the President's policies in and of themselves will not be able to turn that around for Detroit or any other city. They may be a start, but it's up to the city planners themselves to turn things around in Detroit.
a) Art. 1, 2, and 3 already outline the qualifications and elective processes for the Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches of government; and,
b) the 14th Amendment clearly defines who are this nation's citizens.
And if you wanted to go further, Art. 3, Sect. 3 covers acts of Treason. So, IMO, all the basis that the original drafting of the 13th Amendment would have covered as far as citizenship, subversion of power and authority, and where one's alliances are draw in this country are already covered under the Constitution as it currently stands. There's really no need to rehash an old and useless amendment whose only purpose obviously is to remove someone from office just because someone doesn't like him. Pure foolishness.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-30-10 at 10:17 AM.
LOL..... I posted a few up that Article I, section 9, clause 3 would have to be amended before anything could be done as far as changing the 13th amendment and having it affect Barry's Nobel Peace Prize. (that is assuming the Nobel would fall under the 13th, which I doubt)
Sorry, I just short handed it to 1,9,3.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
Im a realist...I dont expect The One to fix everything overnight. However when your policies INCREASE unemployment and INCREASE budget deficits then you dont get to run around, hide behind mommies skirt and blame it on the last guy...or the guy 5 presidents ago. Thats pathetic. If he isnt up to the job he should be fired. If I hired an office manager to run a branch and that iundividual kept giving me some lame assed weak dick response like gee...I didnt know this job would be so hard, or golly...its not fair you blame me...its not my fault...you know what? ****ing wah...take your ass to Burger King or Taco Bell. Because in the big boy world...its not my fault is a lame ass response.
I dont know how many people here actually work for a living...pay taxes, etc. If everyone wants to play silly games about blame this guy or that...well...thats fine...its not the real world...you have that perogative. But everyone MIGTHT want to look at that budget deficit. Last time I checked we are at approx 97.5-98% of our GPD in budget deficit alone. We are at the point where we will soon not be able to pay even our interest on the debt that BOTH PARTIES have accumulated. Whining about whose fault it was or blaming the other guy is simply idiotic. To blame Reagan means you actually believe that democrats and republicans aborgated the responsibilities of congress and turned over controls to our king. Bull****. Republicans AND democrats in congress have spent us into this mess. And worse...we have let them...and not just let them...we ENDORSE it because we want those little crumbs Sammy doles out to us.
But look at the language. I'm not sure it's specific enough to be construed as amending Art 1 Sec 9 Cl 3 as it reads. But the Iowa Republicans' platform is to ratify the original 13th as-is. Any changes or additional language and they'd have to resubmit the new amendment and start the process over again. You can't just send a constitutional amendment to the equivalent of reconciiation.
It could always be worse.