Select your best hookup:
Local
Gay
Asian
Latin
East Europe

find gay hookups

It is that, couples and interests to meet cost free singles worldwide. free dating websites mn Are you searching for a deeper connection than just a one evening stand? Lots of other lesbian dating apps are geared toward casual hookups and can swiftly leave you with swipe exhaustion. This way is designed a required get in touch with, for a satisfied turn of people s lives based on who is named person desires. skipthegames saginaw All too normally, the true character of the person only seems when some adverse event hits them or you.

teen hookup apps

This outstanding match went on to develop a beautiful family of three daughters, and Svetlana and Lev immigrated to America via a Jewish refugee plan in 1996. free gay hookup sites vancouver So, I can spend an whole date asking concerns? But honestly, you can ask as numerous or as few as you want. The activities a girl enjoys carrying out can inform you a lot about her. bumble dark mode AsYouAre partnered with CometChat to create in app chat for India s initially LGBTQ+ dating platform to deliver a secure and elevated chat knowledge.

Home  Sign In  Search  Date Ideas  Join  Forums  Singles Groups  - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!


12/1/2012 10:19:33 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


1. Yes I did
2. No I didn't
3. Wow you're crazy


(this post has been flagged as inappropriate, sorry.)



[Edited 12/1/2012 10:20:31 AM ]

Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!

DateHookup.dating - 100% Free Personals


12/3/2012 7:59:44 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from nfries88:
TL;DR: You didn't sign anything, and so you are in no way bound by it. And regardless of if you did, the Constitution's text does not restrict citizens either, the entirety of it is phrased in terms of the branches of the federal government or its specific office holders.


The Constitution says:

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The meaning of this is simply: We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will coöperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.

The necessity for the consent of “the people” is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one’s consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of “the people of the United States” would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, “We, the people,” is, that the instrument offered membership to all “the people of the United States;” leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

[...]

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probably one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

Still further. Even those who actually voted for the adoption of the Constitution, did not pledge their faith for any specific time; since no specific time was named, in the Constitution, during which the association should continue. It was, therefore, merely an association during pleasure; even as between the original parties to it. Still less, if possible, has it been any thing more than a merely voluntary association, during pleasure, between the succeeding generations, who have never gone through, as their fathers did, with so much even as any outward formality of adopting it, or of pledging their faith to support it. [...]

There is no escape from these conclusions, if we say that the adoption of the Constitution was the act of the people, as individuals, and not of the States, as States. On the other hand, if we say that the adoption was the act of the States, as States, it necessarily follows that they had the right to secede at pleasure, inasmuch as they engaged for no specific time.

[...]

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

Therefore a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.

Lysander Spooner, No Treason

It is worthy to note that police officers, service members, and elected officials are all required to swear on oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Because they similarly did not actually sign any document to that effect, and merely swore an oath, they are not legally bound by it either. But when they fail to do so, it does make them into liars, which is something to think about next time you vote.


so when you swear an oath in court you don't think you're bound to tell the truth because you didn't sign anything? how about the oath of enlistment i took in the army. i didn't really have to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed above me? you're simply dead wrong. you don't sign any law that the congress or state legislature passes so feel free to violate the law and come back and tell me how that worked for you.



[Edited 12/3/2012 8:02:00 AM ]

12/3/2012 8:22:45 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from jrbogie1949:
so when you swear an oath in court you don't think you're bound to tell the truth because you didn't sign anything? how about the oath of enlistment i took in the army. i didn't really have to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed above me? you're simply dead wrong. you don't sign any law that the congress or state legislature passes so feel free to violate the law and come back and tell me how that worked for you.


Good answer. I was perplexed by this guys post and didn't know how to but you did it well. Kudos.


12/3/2012 6:21:02 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from jrbogie1949:
so when you swear an oath in court you don't think you're bound to tell the truth because you didn't sign anything? how about the oath of enlistment i took in the army. i didn't really have to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed above me? you're simply dead wrong. you don't sign any law that the congress or state legislature passes so feel free to violate the law and come back and tell me how that worked for you.


People lie in court all the time. People disobey direct orders from superiors all the time.

When they're caught, they get punished. Unfortunately we are rarely so lucky with regards to politicians.

But way to get butthurt over western legal theory.

12/3/2012 7:13:08 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
phreewolf420
Over 1,000 Posts (1,037)
Richmond, VA
39, joined Oct. 2012


I can barely type right now let alone reaD

12/3/2012 7:53:20 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from nfries88:
People lie in court all the time. People disobey direct orders from superiors all the time.

When they're caught, they get punished. Unfortunately we are rarely so lucky with regards to politicians.

But way to get butthurt over western legal theory.


yes people who lie in court, break laws, disobey dirct orders from superiors, all without ever signing anything, do indeed get punished when caught. we're not talking about legal theory. we're talking about legal fact and your reasonging makes no sense. do you really think you can break a law that you yourself did not sign and cannot be legally punnished?

12/3/2012 8:35:26 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
lazerspewpewpew
Jarvisburg, NC
42, joined Mar. 2012


Why are most of these threads in the independent forum a bunch of republican propaganda?

12/3/2012 9:08:48 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


you noticed.

12/3/2012 9:27:09 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from jrbogie1949:
yes people who lie in court, break laws, disobey dirct orders from superiors, all without ever signing anything, do indeed get punished when caught. we're not talking about legal theory. we're talking about legal fact and your reasonging makes no sense. do you really think you can break a law that you yourself did not sign and cannot be legally punnished?


I cannot be ethically punished, because I did not consent. "Legal" is relative: what the government says is the law is, unfortunately, the law; regardless of whether or not it is actually consistent with western legal theory.

Oaths are a different story. It is my opinion that oaths should be taken as a form of consent, but legally they are not except in the case of the courts (military punishments for violating orders is also legal, but that is because you formally consent to this when you sign your (re)enlistment contract).

But if you apply western legal theory consistently, rather than as the government finds convenient, then we are not bound by any law.

Also, FYI, I am not a Republican, and I have only voted for one Republican (because he was the only choice for that office), so I don't get why you inferred this as "Republican propaganda".

In fact, Lysander Spooner wrote "No Treason" as a condemnation of the Lincoln administration for violating the principle of government by consent; and quite a few Republicans find his statements about the Constitution to be offensive (that it is not legally binding, that it either allows or failed to prevent the current government [of the 1860s] and should thus cease to be a political issue, etc). Lysander Spooner was a liberal radical.



[Edited 12/3/2012 9:28:23 PM ]

12/3/2012 11:38:20 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from lazerspewpewpew:
Why are most of these threads in the independent forum a bunch of republican propaganda?


Off Subject:

I have a "T" shirt I bought in Interourse, PA at a Flea Market. It is graced with the words, "Virginia might be for lovers but Pennsylvania has Intercourse". I visited all those nice little towns in a circle there and it was fun. Excellent food, great pretzels, and I got a pretzel certificate by folding one at the factory. Nice. There was Blue Ball, Bird in Hand, and Intercourse right there together. I'm not sure in what order I visited them.



12/3/2012 11:41:07 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


A lawyer friend once told me that it doesn't matter if you do something illegal until somebody calls you on it and ignorance of the law is no excuse when they do.

12/4/2012 9:46:29 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from 58dpilot:
A lawyer friend once told me that it doesn't matter if you do something illegal until somebody calls you on it and ignorance of the law is no excuse when they do.


Yeah, pretty much. But the courts don't enforce the Constitution against legislators, only against legislation.

Also, if you need the legal theory behind Spooner's arguments, this is a good page about the legal concept of consent: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2004/11/legal_theory_le.html

In particular, the bit about "autonomy and consent" best applies to Spooner's "No Treason" -- Spooner, being an Anarchist, was guided by the principle of individual autonomy in his writings.

12/4/2012 11:36:48 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from nfries88:
I cannot be ethically punished, because I did not consent. "Legal" is relative: what the government says is the law is, unfortunately, the law; regardless of whether or not it is actually consistent with western legal theory.

Oaths are a different story. It is my opinion that oaths should be taken as a form of consent, but legally they are not except in the case of the courts (military punishments for violating orders is also legal, but that is because you formally consent to this when you sign your (re)enlistment contract).

But if you apply western legal theory consistently, rather than as the government finds convenient, then we are not bound by any law.

Also, FYI, I am not a Republican, and I have only voted for one Republican (because he was the only choice for that office), so I don't get why you inferred this as "Republican propaganda".

In fact, Lysander Spooner wrote "No Treason" as a condemnation of the Lincoln administration for violating the principle of government by consent; and quite a few Republicans find his statements about the Constitution to be offensive (that it is not legally binding, that it either allows or failed to prevent the current government [of the 1860s] and should thus cease to be a political issue, etc). Lysander Spooner was a liberal radical.


here's what you don't get. we have laws BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT ETHICAL OR MORAL. your's and my ethics are different than tim mcvieh's or jim jones'. ethics and morals are in the minds of each of us as individuals which prompted john adams to quip, 'we are a nation of laws, not men.' that IS american legal theory which is all that matters.

i never suggested that you were republican.

12/4/2012 12:01:50 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Ethics are universal. That's what separates them from morals. You and I probably have different moral standards, but not different ethical standards. Many people use ethics and morals interchangeably, which leads to confusion.

A good general summation of ethics is the golden rule: do not do to others as you would not have them do to you. The golden rule is common between different cultures, religions, and geographic populations.

Laws that enforce morality rather than ethics are generally unethical in themselves. As an example, how many people who have at one point used marijuana themselves now have no problem with locking up anyone caught with marijuana on their person?

Better question: What did Jefferson state was the role of government in his Declaration of Independence?



[Edited 12/4/2012 12:02:43 PM ]

12/4/2012 2:00:04 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from nfries88:
Ethics are universal. That's what separates them from morals. You and I probably have different moral standards, but not different ethical standards. Many people use ethics and morals interchangeably, which leads to confusion.

A good general summation of ethics is the golden rule: do not do to others as you would not have them do to you. The golden rule is common between different cultures, religions, and geographic populations.

Laws that enforce morality rather than ethics are generally unethical in themselves. As an example, how many people who have at one point used marijuana themselves now have no problem with locking up anyone caught with marijuana on their person?

Better question: What did Jefferson state was the role of government in his Declaration of Independence?


so hitler's ethics are universal? interesting that you bring up the golden rule. why would i treat somebody the way i wish to be treated when i can treat them the way THEY WISH TO BE TREATED? nothing in the least universal as regards ethics. if that was not true, why would we need laws?

adams was speaking about the constitution which is settled law. jefferson's reference to the declaration is moot as it has no basis in law.

12/4/2012 2:50:03 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


laws exist for men like Hitler.

12/5/2012 9:19:01 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


laws exist for everybody under their jurisdiction.

12/5/2012 10:47:23 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Good people don't need laws, and bad people don't follow them.

12/5/2012 12:56:02 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Quote from jrbogie1949:
so hitler's ethics are universal? interesting that you bring up the golden rule. why would i treat somebody the way i wish to be treated when i can treat them the way THEY WISH TO BE TREATED? nothing in the least universal as regards ethics. if that was not true, why would we need laws?

adams was speaking about the constitution which is settled law. jefferson's reference to the declaration is moot as it has no basis in law.


Clearly, I gotta start following this thread. You're doing so well, though, that I don't have much to add. I'll just sit back, eat popcorn and watch the fur fly.

I do find it hysterical the translation applied to the Constitution, though...

12/5/2012 12:59:43 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Quote from nfries88:
Good people don't need laws, and bad people don't follow them.


Okay, that's just bullshit. "Good people" believed in the need to prevent miscegenation and it took Loving v. Virgina to overtun that. "Good people" believed in prohibition and we had to have a Constitutional Amendment to fix that. And "bad people" are not universally "bad" in all aspects of their life. Little know fact - Ted Bundy was a suicide hotline volunteer and very effective at it.

We are a nation of laws - we don't have tanks in the streets to change governments. And while our nation of laws is not prefect, it beats the hell out of what they have in many other places.

12/5/2012 3:06:12 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand

Hey, guess how many federal felonies you committed today? Did you guess zero? One? Two? No, chances are, it was three: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

Yeah, we're a nation of laws, and those laws make us all criminals.

I believe it was Thomas Paine who said that to argue with those who reject reason is to make oneself look like a fool. I'll bow out now.



[Edited 12/5/2012 3:06:54 PM ]

12/5/2012 4:03:30 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


You are apparently one of the radical Libertarians I know from NH. Ayn Rand was an idiot.



[Edited 12/5/2012 4:04:22 PM ]

12/5/2012 4:32:00 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Libertarians, conservatives, and independents while different still make more sense than Liberals regardless of the subject or argument. That is because Liberalism is a serious mental disorder that has no cure. The best that can be done is to offer pity and condolences. It is a terminal illness and they will soon wipe themselves out.

12/5/2012 5:31:41 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


While I would qualify as a libertarian (and tend to vote that way), I actually qualify much better as a liberal ("broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms").

Although you could say I am a traditional American, insofar as that the only consistent American tradition is the repeated defiance of tradition.

12/5/2012 5:43:43 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Quote from 58dpilot:
Libertarians, conservatives, and independents while different still make more sense than Liberals regardless of the subject or argument. That is because Liberalism is a serious mental disorder that has no cure. The best that can be done is to offer pity and condolences. It is a terminal illness and they will soon wipe themselves out.

I'm an Idaho Liberal and a Massachusetts Conservative - figure that one out. What it makes me is a disaffected voter who pretty much distrusts and dislikes both major political parties and the radical wing of the Libertarian party in America. European Libertarians I'm cool with, but they are not crazy.

Did almost 20 years in child protection. The more conservative people get the more whacked out they are. I never had to deal with tree-hugging, granola crunching liberals about burning their kids with cigarettes to show them what the pain of hell would be like. The more conservative the religion and the person's stance the worse the kids have it - hell, look at the Westboro Baptist Church as a perfect example of conservatism in action.

You can spout what you like, but you don't have the stats or the data to back up the rant.

12/5/2012 5:45:58 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


And most so-called liberals don't actually qualify as liberals. "Social liberalism" is a rather rigid ideology that's existed well over a century and has pervaded nearly every corner of the globe despite having little-to-no empirical basis for its promises of success (and much for its opponents worries of its failure) -- it is not only an orthodoxy, but it is one that is consistently proven to fail by history. They make arguments for traditional reasons (see Van Jones' speech for his "Rebuild the Dream" project awhile back -- case-in-point). And they tend towards authoritarianism (see Obama).

They aren't worthy of being called progressives, either. Their programs may have caused some slight progress in themselves but inhibit further progress just by their implementation. For example, thanks to SNAP, the poor no longer go hungry: great, but they're still poor, and they're staying poor like never before in our history (in honesty, SNAP probably isn't the worst offender).

Anyway, now I've pissed off the right by picking on their precious illegitimate Constitution and the left by demonstrating them to be illiberal.



12/5/2012 6:15:54 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Um, SNAP doesn't make sure the poor don't go hungry. SNAP may prevent outright starvation, but it doesn't prevent hunger in America. There are a LOT of hungry, malnourished people in America. In fact, it has gotten a lot worse since i used to work for the Salvation Army.

12/5/2012 6:25:06 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


If poor people are going hungry even with SNAP, either they're lacking in frugality, they have something they can sell in order to feed themselves (you can't get SNAP benefits with more than $2000 in "assets"), or they're using SNAP on something other than food.

SNAP is a very generous program.

12/5/2012 7:58:18 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


There is more than one politician right now attempting to eat on the $4 a day allowed by SNAP. Try it sometime - without resorting to $1 burgers that SNAP can't pay for.

12/5/2012 8:56:39 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from dawgpaws:
There is more than one politician right now attempting to eat on the $4 a day allowed by SNAP. Try it sometime - without resorting to $1 burgers that SNAP can't pay for.


Hey, I represent that! I don't like hamburgers, either. But I do it all the time and it tastes great, too. I'm certainly not losing any weight on it either!

A handful of white rice with milk, cinnamon and a little sugar for breakfast is about 40 cents.

A packet of dehydrated chicken noodle soup and baloney or tuna sandwich for lunch cost me about a buck and a half to two bucks or so.

Ramen Aflredo for dinner costs about a buck, maybe a buck and a quarter if you use heavy cream.

An occasional baked potato dressed up a little is less than a buck and a meal. A pot of beans you can make for under a dollar will feed several people for a couple of days. A pot of lentil beans with smoked sausage costs about three and a half bucks to make and will feed one person for three or four days or a family of 4 with some left-overs.

All you gotta do is be creative or eat like I did growning up. It feeds you well and keeps you going and adds up to less than four bucks a day.

By the way the Alfredo is excellent and the recipe is easy and takes only about 10 minutes to prepare. Cook the noodles and drain, put some margerine or butter back in the hot pot, add a little milk or heavy cream, a slice of American or similar cheese, pepper jack is good, and the spice pack. Heat and melt the cheese and dump the cooked Rahmen noodles back in. If you want to splurge add some diced spam or a few frozen shrimp and it's particularly tasty. To splurge BIG toss the Rahmen noodles and use regular fettucine or spaghetti noodles.

Now somebody will b*tch it isn't healthy or something but remember not eating at all is a lot less healthy.



12/5/2012 9:39:20 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from dawgpaws:
There is more than one politician right now attempting to eat on the $4 a day allowed by SNAP. Try it sometime - without resorting to $1 burgers that SNAP can't pay for.


actually i live on about a hundred twenty bucks a month for food, four bucks or so a day, and i eat quite well. but i don't buy soft drinks, candy, potato chips and much of the less than nutritious crap i see obese people buying with food stamps. i've no idea how much in assistance some of these people get each month but i've no doubt that as far as nutrition goes i could make it go farther than most. and i see these people often buying beer and cigarettes to go along with their sugar and fat. it's all about the giving someone a fish, feed him for a day, or teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. but such requires some common sense.

12/5/2012 9:57:59 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from jrbogie1949:
actually i live on about a hundred twenty bucks a month for food, four bucks or so a day, and i eat quite well. but i don't buy soft drinks, candy, potato chips and much of the less than nutritious crap i see obese people buying with food stamps. i've no idea how much in assistance some of these people get each month but i've no doubt that as far as nutrition goes i could make it go farther than most. and i see these people often buying beer and cigarettes to go along with their sugar and fat. it's all about the giving someone a fish, feed him for a day, or teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. but such requires some common sense.


I love the rare occasions when I agree with you 100%!

I have an aquaintance that works in a commercial laundry making $7.50 an hour. She has two teenaged boys at home. She doesn't get any assistance and never asked for any. However she associates with a lot of people that do and many of those parents are here illegally. According to her when all forms of assistance are fully exploited many collect as much as $800 a month for food alone. Those are her words, not mine.

On the other hand several years ago (I think it was maybe 14 or so) I lived with a lady that had two children and used Pell Grants and the single parent scholarship program to become a nurse. While in the program they gave her gas money and $400 a month in little coupon books...they had little coupons that had dollar amounts on them and you tore them out and handed them over at the store.

Since she was living with me though we were not married she really didn't need them and actually didn't use all of them. But she was able to buy pretty much anything she wanted with them. Ribeyes and lobster tails were not off limits. I refused to and never did eat any food she bought with them because it wasn't right. I used to laugh when I grilled ribeyes or T-bones for them and sirloin for me.

12/5/2012 10:09:48 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


I already eat less than $4 a day most days.

In fact, there was a time in my life where I ate for almost a year on only $300. I didn't suffer from serious malnutrition. I wasn't sick all the time. I wasn't starving. I did lose about 15 pounds, but that's because I was overweight prior. Ramen Noodles, hot dogs, cucumber slices, and free food from churches. It's really not hard.

12/6/2012 1:15:55 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from nfries88:
I already eat less than $4 a day most days.

In fact, there was a time in my life where I ate for almost a year on only $300. I didn't suffer from serious malnutrition. I wasn't sick all the time. I wasn't starving. I did lose about 15 pounds, but that's because I was overweight prior. Ramen Noodles, hot dogs, cucumber slices, and free food from churches. It's really not hard.


One of those, huh? A church scavenger? How telling. You have a good mind dude...put it to use. Prostituting yourself for food or anything else is degrading. Oh, it sucks to be a good mind without the ability to sustain one's self! You are relegated to pittydom in spite of your better attributes. Very sad.

12/6/2012 4:16:09 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Quote from nfries88:
I already eat less than $4 a day most days.

In fact, there was a time in my life where I ate for almost a year on only $300. I didn't suffer from serious malnutrition. I wasn't sick all the time. I wasn't starving. I did lose about 15 pounds, but that's because I was overweight prior. Ramen Noodles, hot dogs, cucumber slices, and free food from churches. It's really not hard.


You can't feed growing children a diet like that and not have them malnourished, nor women of childbearing age. This is exactly the reason there are millions of at risk children in America today, even with breakfasts and lunches provided free at school. However, they are not provided for older children - as if older children do not have stomachs that growl with hunger. Further, you may get enough calories, but not enough nutrition.

The churches are running out of food. Food banks are running out of food. Gads, it is hard to believe anyone could be this dense.



[Edited 12/6/2012 4:16:51 PM ]

12/6/2012 4:24:33 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
dawgpaws
Townsend, MA
67, joined Sep. 2012


Quote from 58dpilot:
One of those, huh? A church scavenger? How telling. You have a good mind dude...put it to use. Prostituting yourself for food or anything else is degrading. Oh, it sucks to be a good mind without the ability to sustain one's self! You are relegated to pittydom in spite of your better attributes. Very sad.


Oh for god's sake - if he needed the food then there is nothing wrong with going to a food pantry. It is only a problem if one doesn't need it.

I worked conjointly with the Anchorage food bank when I was at a Salvation Army shelter and in addition to feeding our residents, we provided food for other hungry people. We often had tables set up in the parking lot in back where skinny, ragged people (some feral street people) came and wolfed down food.

Churches and social organizations have worked very hard for a long, long time to redistribute foodstuffs to those who would otherwise hunger. Ditto clothing. I resent that most clothing donated today is sold and goes to Africa. We used to give vouchers to people with no winter clothes to go to the Salvation Army Store and get coats and boots and scarves. We helped a fair number of military dependents too, especially those forced into off-base housing.

Later, when I was a liaison between the state and the Anchorage military bases I directly interfaced with base social services (AF/Army) to meet the needs of military families as well as the local poor.

There is absolutely no reason to call him a scavenger if he would otherwise have gone hungry. I certainly wish we still had the old redistribution programs where a family could get eggs, flour, cheese, butter, peanut butter, etc. to last a month.

12/6/2012 5:15:17 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from 58dpilot:
One of those, huh? A church scavenger? How telling. You have a good mind dude...put it to use. Prostituting yourself for food or anything else is degrading. Oh, it sucks to be a good mind without the ability to sustain one's self! You are relegated to pittydom in spite of your better attributes. Very sad.


I never cease putting my mind to use. I put it to use at work, I put it to use at home, I probably even put it to use while I'm sleeping, but I can never seem to remember. I bet I dream about being Sherlock Holmes or Patrick Jane or the Doctor or something along those lines.

12/19/2012 1:42:20 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
renegadefreeman
Abbeville, AL
28, joined Dec. 2012


The Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America is the Supreme law of the land as stated in Article VI, Clause II, the Supremacy Clause.
And the Bill of Rights being the core laws defending our God-given rights. The Constitution does not give us rights, but secures them under law. God gives us our birth rights. And only God can take them away, not any politician or government. All laws that are "passed" that are unconstitutional are null and void. If you are not in favor of the Constitution then leave this Republic.

12/19/2012 3:00:10 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


of course no law is unconstitutional until and unless it is ruled so by a court. and government can and does take away our rights and no right is absolute.



[Edited 12/19/2012 3:01:37 PM ]

12/19/2012 3:18:19 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from jrbogie1949:
of course no law is unconstitutional until and unless it is ruled so by a court. and government can and does take away our rights and no right is absolute.

False. Government does not take away rights. Rights cannot be given, taken, or otherwise transferred. They can only be violated.

Also, there is no need for a court to say so for a law to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is plain and simple text, short enough to be read in an afternoon. It doesn't require scholars or judges to determine, any literate person could.

12/20/2012 6:12:45 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


short enough to be read in an afternoon??? hell, the entire body of the constitution is only two pages. i read from we the people all the way through the 27th amendment in about a half hour. and if you think you have an absolute right to free speech, for instance, just speak about having a bomb in your briefcase the next time you pass through an airport security checkpoint. then you can argue your right to free speech from your jail cell. you'll lose of course and be fined and or incarcerated but you'll be able to argue that you were unconstitutionally denied your right to free speech.

12/20/2012 11:25:38 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


I have a right to say whatever I want. They only have the ability to violate that right, not to take it away.

Depending on the moral theory behind rights which you adhere to, it could be argued that I have no right to lie in ways that would upset or harm people. But following such a moral theory, most people are daily criminals even though there is no law, regulation, or agency that would punish them; thus it still fails to associate law as the ultimate arbiter of rights.

12/20/2012 5:57:16 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


Quote from nfries88:
I have a right to say whatever I want..


sure. but using that logic you have a right to kill anybody you want. but threaten the president or murder your neighbor and the government has the authority to incarcerate you for excercising your right.

12/20/2012 7:22:49 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

nfries88
Newark, NY
28, joined Nov. 2011


Quote from jrbogie1949:
but using that logic you have a right to kill anybody you want...


There is no such right. There is a right to self-defense, but there is no right to kill.

12/21/2012 4:20:35 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


a husband in saudi arabia has a right to kill his wife if she offends him. that right is taken away in america. a woman has a right to drive in america. that right is taken away in saudi arabia.

1/28/2013 2:38:56 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
cupocheer
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (252,273)
Assumption, IL
68, joined May. 2010


OP ~~

Thanks for the humor. Sure gets boring sometimes when posters can't laugh at themselves, doesn't it?

2/10/2013 8:02:23 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
daizys118
Over 4,000 Posts! (5,689)
Powder Springs, GA
39, joined Apr. 2012


The Constitution does not have to be agreed on by you for it to be followed. Just as a law you don't like has to be followed. We cannot have a country if people pick and choose which laws to follow.

Ethics are not universal....the difference between Ethics and Morals is that ethics are values that are not religiously based and morals are. And there are no universal ethics or morals. If you have ever taken an ethics class...you would understand this. In any given situation, people would do different things.

You seem more like a socialist anarchist....I read the "manifesto" so to speak. The problem with having now laws/government is that people are not perfect and need to have rules to keep "anarchy" from happening.

I actually feel dumber for having read the ideas the OP has presented.

2/10/2013 9:00:23 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


As you should be. Have yu no tread but digesed "Ethics" by Atristotle? Or "Republic"? to disaprage the reasonings of people that have sudied andlearned he effcis is pure folly. Come back when you have beomce educaed about what you are trying to undertand. Reard;ess pf any number of influences, man is right and free. If he is not, he is not a man at all. Meerly a pawn in the encumberances of others that would exploit him. I give you religion, convention, politics, and the modern "news". They have nothing to do with who you really are!

2/10/2013 9:45:47 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
daizys118
Over 4,000 Posts! (5,689)
Powder Springs, GA
39, joined Apr. 2012


Quote from 58dpilot:
As you should be. Have yu no tread but digesed "Ethics" by Atristotle? Or "Republic"? to disaprage the reasonings of people that have sudied andlearned he effcis is pure folly. Come back when you have beomce educaed about what you are trying to undertand. Reard;ess pf any number of influences, man is right and free. If he is not, he is not a man at all. Meerly a pawn in the encumberances of others that would exploit him. I give you religion, convention, politics, and the modern "news". They have nothing to do with who you really are!


I have read "Ethics." I also have been educated. And my typing is apparently better..

2/11/2013 9:19:13 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

58dpilot
Springdale, AR
62, joined May. 2012


Quote from daizys118:
I have read "Ethics." I also have been educated. And my typing is apparently better..


Alchemy is at the root of it.

2/24/2013 10:44:27 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
cupocheer
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (252,273)
Assumption, IL
68, joined May. 2010




5/26/2013 11:29:09 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
lookiin4love
Sevierville, TN
60, joined May. 2013


can someone tell me what the 18th amindment is

5/27/2013 9:16:38 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


sure, having read the entire constitution a number of times i can tell you anything about it.

5/30/2013 4:55:00 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
lookiin4love
Sevierville, TN
60, joined May. 2013


then tell me and what i means

5/30/2013 5:40:27 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

cowboy4672
Over 4,000 Posts! (6,195)
Lillian, AL
69, joined Dec. 2012


You have a computer and fingers, Google it, or Bing it

5/31/2013 11:27:01 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

jrbogie1949
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (13,851)
Ventura, CA
68, joined Mar. 2009


well gee, if you're having trouble with the meaning of the eighteenth amendment i suppose i can help. of course it means nothing today but before it was repealed it simply meant that the possession, manufacture, transportation, ect., of beverages containing alcohol was unlawful in the u.s. man, i do like these easy ones.

6/1/2013 6:04:42 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

cowboy4672
Over 4,000 Posts! (6,195)
Lillian, AL
69, joined Dec. 2012


The 18th was the result of an earlier version of the "Tea Party."

Basically you get a whole bunch of little groups who hate each, other together in a compromise, You Do mine I'll Do yours!! The Abolitionists were a group of thumpers who agreed with a group of industrialists who agreed with a group of war equipment makers who agreed with a group of oil barons who agreed with etc etc....................


So the visible part was the No Alcohol...............................................

The invisible part was the exploration of protected park lands, The TVA, and a bunch of Tanks. lots of other Government funded (Necessities?)

Just as then, Today there is a company, (For Profit) writing Rubber Stamp laws for the states to pass individually. This company is going to determine the "Morality" of the United States!!

If You don't believe that, How come it's always three or four states passing the same laws at the same time?

6/2/2013 9:37:36 AM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  
cupocheer
Over 10,000 Posts!!! (252,273)
Assumption, IL
68, joined May. 2010


I come in here to read and I never am left without a smile on my face.

Thanks, guys, for the humor.

6/2/2013 8:00:41 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

cowboy4672
Over 4,000 Posts! (6,195)
Lillian, AL
69, joined Dec. 2012


Did you ever try to figure out why the women's suffrage is the 19th amendment?



My view, The women wanted the right to vote, the men said no.

They held out and made the men give up booze!! (18th)

They told the men if they got the vote (19th)


they could have booze again!! (21st)


Constitution short course!

6/3/2013 12:15:09 PM Did you know this about the U.S. Constitution?  

cowboy4672
Over 4,000 Posts! (6,195)
Lillian, AL
69, joined Dec. 2012


Another footnote on the 18th,

The president refused to sign it into law.


The house and senate then overrode him and passed the amendment!!