All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00) | Home -> Forums -> Lottery News -> Lottery hoax causes riot at Ohio coat store Ohio United States Member #50440 February 21, 2007 17380 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 20, 2009, 3:26 am - IP Logged | |
Updated with new video report
Oct. 15, 2009, 1:27 p.m. A woman being driven around in a rented limousine pulled up at a coat store and announced she'd won the lottery and would pay for everyone's purchases, police said, but she ended up causing a riot when customers realized it was a hoax. Angry customers threw merchandise around and looted, leaving the store looking as though a hurricane had passed through it, police said. Linda Brown was arrested Tuesday after an hours-long shopping spree that began when she hired a stretch Hummer limousine to drop her off at a Burlington Coat Factory store, police Sgt. Lt. Michael Deakins said. Brown walked to a cash register and loudly announced she had won the lottery and would pay for each person's merchandise up to $500, he said. "Well, of course, people like to hear that," Deakins said. "Apparently they were in line calling relatives who were not at the store and told them to come." People flooded the registers as cashiers began ringing up purchase after purchase, but Brown had not yet paid the bill, Deakins said. At least 500 people filled the aisles and another 1,000 were outside trying to get in, he said. "She was telling people she won $1.5 million," Deakins said. "But it ends up she didn't win anything. She had no money to pay for anything." About an hour later, Brown had the limousine driver take her to a bank to withdraw money, but she returned empty-handed, police Detective Steven Nace said. By then, store employees had called in two dozen police officers to handle the crowds. Shopper Candace Jordan said she told Brown she didn't need clothes, she needed help paying her rent. "And she said, 'How much is it?'" Jordan told WBNS-TV. "And she promptly wrote out a check." By the time employees realized Brown didn't have any cash to pay, police said, she already had taken off in the limo. That's when angry customers, realizing they weren't getting free coats, began throwing merchandise on the floor and grabbing clothes without paying for them, Nace said. "Everybody was like, 'I still want my free stuff,' and that started the riot," he said. "It looks like (Hurricane) Katrina went through the store." Police said they have no way of tracking down the customers who stole items and fled, but they're reviewing surveillance video. When the limousine driver realized he wasn't going to be paid the $900 Brown owed him for the day's rental, he turned her in to police, Deakins said. Brown, 44, was arrested on three outstanding warrants for aggravated menacing, misuse of a 911 system and causing false alarms. She was jailed late Wednesday, but no charges had been filed against her related to the coat store chaos pending a mental health evaluation. Police said they didn't know if Brown had a lawyer. No telephone number was listed under her name, and no one answered repeated phone calls at the Franklin County Jail. A spokeswoman for Burlington Coat Factory, which is based in Burlington, N.J., and has more than 300 stores across the country, said late Wednesday she couldn't comment on the incident. 
I seen that story, I know it was a Hoax, and I knew something was wrong with that lady. I don't blame any one of those people for getting mad about it, but they didn't have to loot the Store. It wasn't the Stores fault. People do some crazy things.  Blessings to everyone let's get this Cash Money ! 12345 67890 Use Mirror #'s Use prs. with your dream Key* numbers the most Vivid thing in your dream. Follow TaxiJohn's rule go up or down. Flip 6=9 `9=6 Bullseyes says 0 or 1 for Pick 4 Play the other part of doubles. Do the Whole nine yards for a P.4* or 0 thur 9 from my dreams or hunches or any numbers. | | |
Georgia United States Member #79889 August 30, 2009 93 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 20, 2009, 9:52 am - IP Logged | |
This really doesn't have anything to do with the lottery other than her statement that is where she supposedly got the money from. | | |
Buffalo United States Member #54866 August 17, 2007 223 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 20, 2009, 7:22 pm - IP Logged | |
No she didn't, Obama was supposed to write her a stimulas check for her vote, but hasn't gotten around to her, because he's jet setting around the globe with his Obamanites in tow...! This woman needs help like the rest of this country. what was that about????? THE president is being accused of everything -even some statements made by a women walking into a store for low income consumers gee wizz .......Republicans need a life .... I love this President , he is doing his best ....lets face it , no one elese could do anybetter ;  | | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 20, 2009, 8:19 pm - IP Logged | |
"I am sorry to inform you that there is no provision in the Constitutionfor other people to pay your bills. It is unconstitutional for thegovernment to demand that we pay your bills, medical or otherwise, andit is an outrage that they intend to illegally confiscate our money todo so." You're confused. For the most part, people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills. They're asking the government to provide a(nother) service. Not only is there absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that, providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. Floyd, You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?" The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment). To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage. You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept. The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it. We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency. The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God. A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history. 
. The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
Buffalo United States Member #54866 August 17, 2007 223 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 21, 2009, 7:41 pm - IP Logged | |
Floyd, You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?" The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment). To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage. You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept. The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it. We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency. The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God. A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
your wrong ........the government has given Trillions to almost every nation on earth .....the federal contracts for the new jet fighter proves it and what about the contract to build the new missele defence system in Poland ?? there were only a few American Business involved and then there is the current new cargo and refuling air ships those are not to be built here either : So what is American you should be asking its not the majoity of the Media -radio-tv-newspappers their owned by rupert Murdoch he is not an American and neither is the majiority of the largest Drug Co. ......so whats this statement by you saying??? (The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power..).......... .And the Republicans have had this whitehouse for over 20 years , and the congress ( reagan- Ford-Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. all had their time and lets include Nixion in there ........all but Ford had 8 years apeice : YOU and others need to explain where and why you spent the NATIONS WEALTH................WHY NOT AMERICANS THIS TIME ???!!!! | | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 21, 2009, 8:39 pm - IP Logged | |
your wrong ........the government has given Trillions to almost every nation on earth .....the federal contracts for the new jet fighter proves it and what about the contract to build the new missele defence system in Poland ?? there were only a few American Business involved and then there is the current new cargo and refuling air ships those are not to be built here either : So what is American you should be asking its not the majoity of the Media -radio-tv-newspappers their owned by rupert Murdoch he is not an American and neither is the majiority of the largest Drug Co. ......so whats this statement by you saying??? (The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power..).......... .And the Republicans have had this whitehouse for over 20 years , and the congress ( reagan- Ford-Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. all had their time and lets include Nixion in there ........all but Ford had 8 years apeice : YOU and others need to explain where and why you spent the NATIONS WEALTH................WHY NOT AMERICANS THIS TIME ???!!!! The Constitution mandates providing for a common defense. It does not mandate nor allow taking money from me and giving it to you (sorry about that). As I said previously, there are countries that operate in that fashion and if that is what you prefer you are free to go live under that kind of system. The vast majority of Americans are not slackers and aren't looking for a handout. We will not change the Constitution for a small minority of whiners. And complaining about the Republicans' national debt after the Democrats just quadrupled it is a little anticlimactic, isn't it? If there was a point in your reference to Rupert Murdoch and the Drug Companies I'm sorry, I missed it. . The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
NY United States Member #24178 October 16, 2005 2127 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 22, 2009, 2:02 am - IP Logged | |
Floyd, You said that people aren't asking the government to make anyone else pay their bills; that they just want them to provide another service. OK, given the fact that the government doesn't have any money other than that they confiscate from other people; who then is going to pay for this "service?" The Constitution was written in a way to be a constraint on federal power. The founders knew the wiles of despotism and tyranny. They wanted to ensure that future generations weren't subjected to it. They respected state's rights over federal dominance and included language in the Constitution ensuring it (see the 10th Amendment). To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage. You also said that providing services to the people is pretty much the only reason to have a government. That flies in the face of the rugged individualism that made this country great. The pioneers weren't looking for a nanny, they were proud people. They considered it shameful to take charity or get a handout. Those were the people that wrote our Constitution and formed our government in those days. To change the intent of the foundational document these people wrote for the transient whims of some MTV generation slackers is not something most Americans would take lightly or accept. The federal government is there primarily to guarantee our sovereignty, protect our borders, regulate trade, provide for our national defense and such. They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. They are not there to make sure everybody is happy and nobody gets more than anybody else. It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it. We are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic is not a social agency. The day may come when the slackers are in the majority and they will be able to burn the Constitution and put everybody on welfare. But they're not there yet and it's not looking too good for them in the next elections. Patriotic Americans are waking up to the tyranny of this administration. They see that it's socialism in it's infancy and they don't want any part of it. Thank God. A majority of states have recently filed assertions of their sovereignty and if worse comes to worst things could get real interesting in the near future. And what that portends may be exactly what we need if worse does come to worst. Personally though, I think the next elections (2010 and 2012) will correct this insane course we've been on for the past 9 months. Then the current president can replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in our history.
"They respected state's rights over federal dominance" That's true as written, but I'm not sure if what you wrote reflects your intended meaning. The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government and make sure it couldn't trample state rights, but it was also intended to restrict state's rights. The result is a document that over time has done a fairly good job of balancing power between the states and the federal government. "To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage." I'd have to agree with that general concept, but since it's not happening, why point it out? You may not like it, but what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution. You may not like how the constitution is interpreted, but the current interpretation goes back to before TV existed, nevermind MTV and the MTV generation. "The federal government is there primarily ..." Those are services. The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves. "They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. <snip> It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it." That's not the intent, but any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed". Not only is it not forbidden by the constitution, it's a power that's specifically granted to the federal government. That "redistribution" works both ways. Some people who start with little get a bit more. Some people who already have a lot get a lot more. Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton? For the most part, the middle class is always on the losing end. I'd say that health care is one issue where they have a pretty good shot of coming out even. | | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 22, 2009, 4:13 am - IP Logged | |
"They respected state's rights over federal dominance" That's true as written, but I'm not sure if what you wrote reflects your intended meaning. The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government and make sure it couldn't trample state rights, but it was also intended to restrict state's rights. The result is a document that over time has done a fairly good job of balancing power between the states and the federal government. "To trash the Constitution because a small segment of society wants a handout is an outrage." I'd have to agree with that general concept, but since it's not happening, why point it out? You may not like it, but what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution. You may not like how the constitution is interpreted, but the current interpretation goes back to before TV existed, nevermind MTV and the MTV generation. "The federal government is there primarily ..." Those are services. The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves. "They are not there to confiscate and redistribute wealth. <snip> It's not their job and the Constitution forbids it." That's not the intent, but any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed". Not only is it not forbidden by the constitution, it's a power that's specifically granted to the federal government. That "redistribution" works both ways. Some people who start with little get a bit more. Some people who already have a lot get a lot more. Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton? For the most part, the middle class is always on the losing end. I'd say that health care is one issue where they have a pretty good shot of coming out even. "but it (the Constitution) was also intended to restrict state's rights." Absolutely not. The feds were given very specific powers. Those not delegated specifically to the federal government were reserved for the states. The Tenth Amendment makes that very clear. The states are supreme in most any given circumstance. The fact that the feds have been running roughshod over states' rights for years does not negate that fact. Case in point, the convolution and criminal misuse of the Commerce Clause. Some people have the backbone to stand up to the criminal intervention by the feds in state matters though. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona ia one of them. They told him to stop arresting illegal aliens. He told them to pound sand. No federal authority can tell a Sheriff what to do in his own county and own state. A lot of people just don't know the limitations of federal law and accept federal bullying. A lot of people are waking up and getting informed though. I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC. "balancing power between the states and the federal government" There was never an intention or even reference to balancing power. Again, check out the Tenth Amendment. The feds have a specific job assignment given to them by the states. And they haven't been doing that job very well unless you consider boondoggle after fiasco some measure of success. "since it's not happening (trashing the Constitution), why point it out?" That was in response to one person saying that the Constitution needs to be changed to fit the mood of the times. No, the Constitution is not being changed to please the slackers who feel entitled to other people's money but the fact they want it to is an outrage. "what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution." No it's not. Period. Show me where it says they can force me to buy anything I don't want and then fine and imprison me if I don't do it. That's sheer nonsense. "The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves." That is not their job and they cannot legally do it under the Constitution. "any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed"." Yes it is, illegally. That crime is brought to you by the Sixteenth Amendment, brought to you by a corrupt government in 1913 and it should be repealed. The fact remains however that even given the 16th Amendment, the money should be used within the parameters of power allocated to the federal government. It's not. "Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton?" OK, now I know where you're coming from. You left out "Bush lied, people died" though. Floyd, LOL, there's no hope for ya! Let's just agree to disagree. . The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
Michigan United States Member #22730 September 24, 2005 1575 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 22, 2009, 5:27 am - IP Logged | |
"but it (the Constitution) was also intended to restrict state's rights." Absolutely not. The feds were given very specific powers. Those not delegated specifically to the federal government were reserved for the states. The Tenth Amendment makes that very clear. The states are supreme in most any given circumstance. The fact that the feds have been running roughshod over states' rights for years does not negate that fact. Case in point, the convolution and criminal misuse of the Commerce Clause. Some people have the backbone to stand up to the criminal intervention by the feds in state matters though. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona ia one of them. They told him to stop arresting illegal aliens. He told them to pound sand. No federal authority can tell a Sheriff what to do in his own county and own state. A lot of people just don't know the limitations of federal law and accept federal bullying. A lot of people are waking up and getting informed though. I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC. "balancing power between the states and the federal government" There was never an intention or even reference to balancing power. Again, check out the Tenth Amendment. The feds have a specific job assignment given to them by the states. And they haven't been doing that job very well unless you consider boondoggle after fiasco some measure of success. "since it's not happening (trashing the Constitution), why point it out?" That was in response to one person saying that the Constitution needs to be changed to fit the mood of the times. No, the Constitution is not being changed to please the slackers who feel entitled to other people's money but the fact they want it to is an outrage. "what's being done in regards to health care is entirely permissible under the constitution." No it's not. Period. Show me where it says they can force me to buy anything I don't want and then fine and imprison me if I don't do it. That's sheer nonsense. "The government does for the people what the people can't (conveniently) do for themselves." That is not their job and they cannot legally do it under the Constitution. "any time the government collects taxes and uses them for anything that wealth is "redistributed"." Yes it is, illegally. That crime is brought to you by the Sixteenth Amendment, brought to you by a corrupt government in 1913 and it should be repealed. The fact remains however that even given the 16th Amendment, the money should be used within the parameters of power allocated to the federal government. It's not. "Maybe you recognize names like Cheney and Haliburton?" OK, now I know where you're coming from. You left out "Bush lied, people died" though. Floyd, LOL, there's no hope for ya! Let's just agree to disagree. Our government should protect its people. I am in favor of cutting government workers wages and salaries. And very much in favor of not allowing any pensions, especially for Congress. I am in favor of getting rid of all that junk they do and put that money towards health care.
|
| | |
Buffalo United States Member #54866 August 17, 2007 223 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 22, 2009, 3:55 pm - IP Logged | |
SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER : THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , : US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH : US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :
| Media Corporation | Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies |
|---|
| Disney/ABC | Proctor & Gamble | | GE/NBC | Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck
| | Time Warner | AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals
| | Fox/News Corp | GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech
| | New York Times Co. | First Health Group, Eli Lilly
| | Tribune Co. | Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals
| | Gannett/USA Today | Chubb
|
now what does Fox news and republicans have in common ????? a professional group of liars and businessmen who have robbed this nation of its entire wealth ..your worried about the crumbs from the masters table: do you know what a trilllion dollars is and what nations your party has sent our money too ???/ s ??? | | |
Buffalo United States Member #54866 August 17, 2007 223 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 22, 2009, 4:12 pm - IP Logged | |
The Constitution mandates providing for a common defense. It does not mandate nor allow taking money from me and giving it to you (sorry about that). As I said previously, there are countries that operate in that fashion and if that is what you prefer you are free to go live under that kind of system. The vast majority of Americans are not slackers and aren't looking for a handout. We will not change the Constitution for a small minority of whiners. And complaining about the Republicans' national debt after the Democrats just quadrupled it is a little anticlimactic, isn't it? If there was a point in your reference to Rupert Murdoch and the Drug Companies I'm sorry, I missed it. common defence this : Fox Television Stations
Fox Television Stations is owned by News Corporation. Jack Abernethy is the CEO of Fox Television Stations. Fox Television is a group of 35 television stations in 26 markets throughout the United States owned and operated by the Fox Broadcasting Company, which is owned by News Corporation, the company built by Rupert Murdoch. Together, the Fox television stations reach about 45% of the population of the USA. Fox Television Stations Group, or FTSG, is one of the largest owned-and-operated network groups in the United States. It was formed in April 1986 from a collection of former Metromedia-owned TV stations. Contact Information Web Site: www.newscorp.com/management/foxtvstations.html Telephone: 212.301.5400 Address: 1211 Avenue of the Americas
21st Floor
New York NY 10036
USA Local Media Properties Select a media outlet to find a detailed profile at Mondo Times, the worldwide media guide.
In Arizona:
KSAZ TV 10 (Fox affiliate) KUTP TV 45 (MyTV affiliate)
In California:
KCOP TV 13 (MyTV affiliate) KTTV TV 11 (Fox affiliate)
In Florida:
WOFL TV 35 (Fox affiliate) WOGX TV 51 (Fox affiliate) WRBW TV 65 (MyTV affiliate) WTVT TV 13 (Fox affiliate)
In Georgia:
WAGA TV 5 (Fox affiliate)
In Illinois:
WFLD TV 32 (Fox affiliate) WPWR TV 50 (MyTV affiliate)
In Maryland:
WUTB TV 24 (MyTV affiliate)
In Massachusetts:
WFXT TV 25 (Fox affiliate)
In Michigan:
WJBK TV 2 (Fox affiliate)
In Minnesota:
KMSP TV 9 (Fox affiliate) WFTC TV 29 (MyTV affiliate)
In Mississippi:
WNTZ TV 48 (Fox affiliate)
In New York:
WNYW TV 5 (Fox affiliate) WWOR TV 9 (MyTV affiliate)
In Pennsylvania:
WTXF TV 29 (Fox affiliate)
In Tennessee:
WHBQ TV 13 (Fox affiliate)
In Texas:
KDFI TV 27 (MyTV affiliate) KDFW TV 4 (Fox affiliate) KRIV TV 26 (Fox affiliate) KTBC TV 7 (Fox affiliate) KTXH TV 20 (MyTV affiliate)
In Washington DC:
WDCA TV 20 (MyTV affiliate) WTTG TV 5 (Fox affiliate)
| | |
NY United States Member #24178 October 16, 2005 2127 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 24, 2009, 3:51 pm - IP Logged | |
"I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC." "there's no hope for ya!" Back at ya, I guess. By virtue of granting certain powers to the federal government, some states' rights are restricted or prohibited axiomatically. States' rights are also restricted by most of the Bill of Rights. You can also look at the history behind the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan. Tell me, though, if the state's rights aren't restricted, do you think the states can force you to buy something you don't want and then fine you? Does it really matter whether it's done at the state or federal level? In most states, if you own a car you're required to have auto insurance. Some municipalities have passed laws that require gun ownership. Closer to our debate, Massachusetts has a law that requires residents to carry health insurance that meets minimum state requirements. I don't think any of those laws specifically require that you "buy" those things, but how else do most people get them? It's not that the constitution allows those things, it's that it doesn't prohibit them. If an act isn't prohibited it is allowed, and the only question is whether something can be done by the states, the federal government, or both. The real issue, and the one where you seem to have your head in the sand, is that the federal government isn't requiring you to buy anything. They collect taxes and spend the money as they see fit. It's well established law that individuals don't get to pick and choose which government programs they pay for; you get to pay for them all. As for the 16th amendment, we can worry about that after you and yourfriends decide whether or not we actually landed on the moon. I agree that the commerce clause (don't forget the general welfare and necessary and reasonable clauses) has been used for things it shouldn't, but the powers of the constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Bummer that those founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and then put them in charge of deciding how to interpret those powers, huh? If only the laws they interpret were enacted by people whose job is to represent the states. Oh. Never mind. As for Cheney and Haliburton, do you disagree that they've both pocketed money from each of us? I just picked them because they're well known and have both made a lot of money from government contracts recently. If it makes you any happier, I'm pretty sure we've both put money in ACORN's pockets, too, though I don't think they've gotten rich. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet there's some federal program that helped put that $500 million in Teresa Heinz Kerry's pockets, too. BTW, a gay poet? | | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 24, 2009, 10:32 pm - IP Logged | |
SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER : THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , : US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH : US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :
| Media Corporation | Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies |
|---|
| Disney/ABC | Proctor & Gamble | | GE/NBC | Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck
| | Time Warner | AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals
| | Fox/News Corp | GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech
| | New York Times Co. | First Health Group, Eli Lilly
| | Tribune Co. | Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals
| | Gannett/USA Today | Chubb
|
now what does Fox news and republicans have in common ????? a professional group of liars and businessmen who have robbed this nation of its entire wealth ..your worried about the crumbs from the masters table: do you know what a trilllion dollars is and what nations your party has sent our money too ???/ s ??? I read your clarification: "SINCE YOU MISSED MY POINT ALL THE WAY LET ME CLAIRIFY IT BETTER : THE REPUBLICANS HAVE GIVEN AWAY TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS OVERSEAS , : US CONTRACTS FUND ALMOST EVERYNATION ON EARTH : US BUSINESS DIDN'T GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS THANKS TO THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DOMINATED THE GOVERNMENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS ; Rupert murdoch owns most of the media in this nation Fox is just one :" You may need to further clarify because I still don't get your point. 1) I am not a Republican. I don't defend their actions. I consider them the lesser of two evils and have felt forced to vote for them in the past only in an effort to keep the the nutjob Dems out. Repubs talk a good game at times but they don't keep their word once they're in office. 2) You stated in a previous post that we have given trillions to nearly every nation on earth. That's simply not true. 3) You stated that US contracts fund almost every nation on earth. That's simply not true. 4) You said US businesses didn't get the federal dollars thanks to Republicans. What federal dollars were they supposed to get and for what purpose? 5) What in the world does Rupert Murdoch have to do with anything we're talking about? 6) What in the world is your list of drug companies and news media companies all about? Is there a point there somewhere? . The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 24, 2009, 10:40 pm - IP Logged | |
Thanks for the list of Fox News affiliates but once again; what's the point?  . The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
Ridge Runner - Oracle of the Appalachians Way back up in them hills, son United States Member #74415 April 28, 2009 8431 Posts Offline | | Posted: October 24, 2009, 11:56 pm - IP Logged | |
"I met a lot of them in the 9/12 march on DC." "there's no hope for ya!" Back at ya, I guess. By virtue of granting certain powers to the federal government, some states' rights are restricted or prohibited axiomatically. States' rights are also restricted by most of the Bill of Rights. You can also look at the history behind the constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, and the adoption of the Virginia plan over the New Jersey Plan. Tell me, though, if the state's rights aren't restricted, do you think the states can force you to buy something you don't want and then fine you? Does it really matter whether it's done at the state or federal level? In most states, if you own a car you're required to have auto insurance. Some municipalities have passed laws that require gun ownership. Closer to our debate, Massachusetts has a law that requires residents to carry health insurance that meets minimum state requirements. I don't think any of those laws specifically require that you "buy" those things, but how else do most people get them? It's not that the constitution allows those things, it's that it doesn't prohibit them. If an act isn't prohibited it is allowed, and the only question is whether something can be done by the states, the federal government, or both. The real issue, and the one where you seem to have your head in the sand, is that the federal government isn't requiring you to buy anything. They collect taxes and spend the money as they see fit. It's well established law that individuals don't get to pick and choose which government programs they pay for; you get to pay for them all. As for the 16th amendment, we can worry about that after you and yourfriends decide whether or not we actually landed on the moon. I agree that the commerce clause (don't forget the general welfare and necessary and reasonable clauses) has been used for things it shouldn't, but the powers of the constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Bummer that those founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and then put them in charge of deciding how to interpret those powers, huh? If only the laws they interpret were enacted by people whose job is to represent the states. Oh. Never mind. As for Cheney and Haliburton, do you disagree that they've both pocketed money from each of us? I just picked them because they're well known and have both made a lot of money from government contracts recently. If it makes you any happier, I'm pretty sure we've both put money in ACORN's pockets, too, though I don't think they've gotten rich. I'm not sure how, but I'll bet there's some federal program that helped put that $500 million in Teresa Heinz Kerry's pockets, too. BTW, a gay poet? Floyd, With all due respect, after reading your post all I can say is that you're off the reservation, all over the map and quite possibly in a parallel universe. Check your coordinates. 1) There is nothing axiomatic about restriction or prohibition of states rights. The restrictions and prohibitions are all on the federal government and stated very clearly. 2) For you to say that the Bill of Rights restricts or even mentions restricting states rights is ludicrous. It's all about the individual rights of the people. 3) Yes, the states can require you to have insurance if that is what their constituency wants but the federal government cannot. 4) Tennessee experimented with socialized healthcare and it was a colossal failure and is being discontinued. 5) Because something isn't prohibited to the federal government does not mean that it is allowed (Tenth Amendment). 6) You're wrong about the federal government not requiring us to buy anything. Everyone will be required to buy insurance or face stiff fines and/or imprisonment. It will not be taken out of your taxes. You will be forced to buy it. But yes, you will also be taxed to pay for those on the public option (the slackers). 7) That's your crowd that thinks the moon landing was a hoax. They also think that Bush and Cheney blew up the towers and that there are Martians in Area 51. 8) I agree with you on ACORN; don't know about Teresa Heinz for sure. 9) As for Haliburton, there was simply no one conglomerate in the world that could handle the logistics of the tasks they've been given, especially Iraq. If you know of one you should let the government know because nobody else does. 10) To put this whole debate to rest I would advise you to read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It explicitly details the powers given to the federal government. Then read the Tenth Amendment which explicitly details the scope and limits of those powers. It's very clear and precise. Gay poet? I don't get it. . The water ain't never gonna run clear til you get the pigs out of the creek.
| | |
|
