It's actually just SpiderCMB. I'm not sure what a spidercomb is and I would rather not know.

There is no conflict of interest between the middle and poor classes




except that we can't afford to pay lawyers to get us out of taxes so we end up paying the bills of the poor that the wealthy 2% could better afford - except that they do have lawyers who get them out of their taxes so they end up not supporting the poor - leaving it instead to the middle classes who are already struggling to get by

and the governmet are like prostitutes and bookies on the take licking *** of the the ones who pay the largest sums

I do not see how that is a conflict between the middle and poor classes.

Enough of the wealthy memebers of society do not care about well-being of anyone else. That is more than evident by their funding congressmen/women who insist upon cutting the programs which only middle class and poor people need while decreasing their own tax liability. The divisiveness of this approach has the effect of pitting the middle class against the poor because someone has to pay for the social programs. These people, some hiding behind the identity of small and some hiding behind the identity of megacorporations have refused to do so. They have justified this refusal with rhetoric, often expressing that it is the poor people's fault that they are poor, and the like. Claiming that all poor people are drug users. Calling unemployment insurance benefits leeching off of American taxpayers, etc. They have 'hired' enough congress persons and judges to get the ball rolling in order to pass legislation that allows them to look the other way while angering the middle class and perpetuating the belief that the poor are hampering the middle class.

This election season our televisions will literally be overwhelmed by ads which aim to divide the country. I suspect Obama's campaign will take the opposite approach. The average American taxpayer, by all poll results that I've seen understand that there are two ways to balance a budget. Cut spending and increase revenue. How poor do we want our poor to be?

We must also spend in order to spur economic growth. That's just a fact.

sure it does. the court ruled the line item veto, which congress passed and the president would have power to excercise, uncontitutional. all three branches of government can 'over-rule' any other branch. congress can float an amendment such as the reconstruction amendments which over-ruled the court's dred scott decision. the president has the sole power to appoint justices with the advice and consent of the senate. it's called 'separation of powers' or a 'ballance of power.'

I don't think you're getting it. The Supreme court didn't have the authority to rule anything unconstitutional. Only to offer erudite opinions. The Court could only adjudicate according to how the other two branches legislated.

indeed, certainly am not getting your position. so the supreme court has no authority to rule anything unconstitutional? and now we have TWO branches legislating? no, i'm not in the least getting that.

The Constitution didn't granted the The Supreme Court the authority to rule a law unconstitutional. That authority was taken in a power grab by the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison. The system was designed so that the Executive branch or the Senate would stop the Congress from passing an Unconstitutional law. If an Unconstitutional law was passed by all three, a future administration could fix it. Now we have a third branch of Government that isn't checked or balanced by either of the other two. If the Supreme Court makes a bad ruling, the only ones who can change that are the Supreme Court.

So who's the neo-nazi in the pic spidey?

What picture, I didn't post a picture? What neo-nazi? What are you talking about?

show me on the Constitution, then. I guess what your are talking about is what they cal "origional jurisdiction".

According to this Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The Court didn't expand it's powers to where it could consider every issue as a constitutional issue until Marbury v Madison.

I didn't think you would answer my question.

It was pointless... my comment I mean.

Sue me.

No worries spidey. No worries at all.

In short, todays supply and demand 'capitalism' is socialism for the very wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.

All we must do is look.

--

Locked and secured neighborhoods where everyone owns the gym, the pool, the spa, the courts, the golfcourse, the beach access, etc. Everyone shares in the equal financial responsibility of maintaining the grounds. Everyone shares equally in the use of such outstanding facilities. Everyone who is wealthy enough to afford them, that is. For it is a gated community. Members only.

Socialism for them, raw capitalism for the rest.

Private schools get their money from the private citizens whose kids attend such schools. Every parent has an equal stake. They want the best teachers and the best tools, so they have the best teachers and the best tools. They want an environment which facilitates developing the potential of those with the most potential, so they have it. They want the arts, so they have the arts. They want the cutting edge technology, so they have the cutting edge technology. Everyone shares equally in the quality of the facility. Everyone who is wealthy enough to afford it that is.

Socialism for them, raw capitalism for the rest.

The government officials who hold an equal share in their own best interest, so they have socialized medicine, bought and paid for by the citizens whose best interest is sworn to be taken into account in their decision making. Those who passed laws allowing themselves to keep their taxpayer funded healthcare benefits for their lifetime.

Socialism for them, raw capitalism for the rest.

Government officials who get their money from taxpayers and because it is more than enough to live very comfortably, they can invest what they can into corporations and other investments which will provide for an early retirement if they so choose, many of which in the gated community of their own choosing. Those who pass legislation which increases their own salary. Those who attach riders to tax legislation that allows themselves and their friends who own large shares in corporate interests to avoid paying income tax on the corporations treasury, a safe haven. Those who pass laws no longer requiring a corporation to keep adequate financial records.

Socialism for them, raw capitalism for the rest.

absolutely correct. and marbury set the precident. marbury is the first case studied by every first year law student. it illustrates the power of the supremes like nothing else does. in fact after that case their power was so consilidated it got them out of the basement in the capitol and into their home where they hold court today. great example to show the real power of our highest court.

simply not so.

'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,'

What the Marshall court did, with Marbury v Madison, was turn the Supreme Court into the most powerful branch of the Government.

In short, todays supply and demand 'capitalism' is socialism for the very wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.

All we must do is look.

--

Privatize profits and socialize losses...

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." (NY Times, 11.26.06)

Warren Buffet

Wake up.