Change You Can Conceive In

[stephanie]

good friggen grief..these people have friggen lost it..

:eek::cuckoo:

By Jessica Bennett | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 14, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

The theory is almost too perfect to be true. Barack Obama, the son of politically progressive parents, was born Aug. 4, 1961—almost nine months to the day after John F. Kennedy was elected to the White House. Is it possible Obama was conceived on that historic night?

And if so, could history repeat itself? In the hours and days since Obama's victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love. And though it's too soon to know for sure, experts aren't ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it's scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II). "The mood of the country and the optimism about leadership is always somewhat related to birth rates," says Dr. Manny Alvarez, chief of reproductive science at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey. "I'm gearing up for a healthy increase."

Hope and euphoria, says University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, are a serious aphrodisiac. And voters under 30 went for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1. When you combine those two elements—randy people of child-bearing age—the likely result is what the online Urban Dictionary has already dubbed "Obama Babies" : children "conceived after Obama was proclaimed President, by way of celebratory sex." "If the amount of alcohol, happy people and major functions on election night is any indication, I suspect we'll indeed see a boom," says 25-year-old Brandon Mendelson, a graduate student in Albany, N.Y., who says he changed his vote at the last minute because "I wanted to be able to tell our future children that we voted for Obama."


read it all if you wish..
http://www.newsweek.com/id/169073

[5stringJeff]

good friggen grief..these people have friggen lost it..

:eek::cuckoo:

By Jessica Bennett | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 14, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

The theory is almost too perfect to be true. Barack Obama, the son of politically progressive parents, was born Aug. 4, 1961—almost nine months to the day after John F. Kennedy was elected to the White House. Is it possible Obama was conceived on that historic night?

Would people really want to have sex to celebrate JFK's assassination???

[Binky]

It didn't say they celebrated Kennedy's assination. I don't think that's what it meant. But I do think, given the opportunity, people would have sex for any reason.

[Kathianne]

Would people really want to have sex to celebrate JFK's assassination???

I think that was his 'election', not assassination.

[avatar4321]

Would people really want to have sex to celebrate JFK's assassination???

You need an excuse to have sex?

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps the boom will be from all those confused Asians celebrating his "erection"

[krisy]

[QUOTE=Binky;32435 But I do think, given the opportunity, people would have sex for any reason.[/QUOTE]


I think most guys on the board would agree:coffee:

[Kathianne]

Perhaps the boom will be from all those confused Asians celebrating his "erection"

Oh my! :eek: :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

Perhaps the boom will be from all those confused Asians celebrating his "erection"

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Immanuel]

But I do think, given the opportunity, people would have sex for any reason.


I think most guys on the board would agree:coffee:

Kind of playing off Avatar's comment:

Who needs a reason?

Immie

[Sitarro]

good friggen grief..these people have friggen lost it..

:eek::cuckoo:

By Jessica Bennett | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 14, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

The theory is almost too perfect to be true. Barack Obama, the son of politically progressive parents, was born Aug. 4, 1961—almost nine months to the day after John F. Kennedy was elected to the White House. Is it possible Obama was conceived on that historic night?

And if so, could history repeat itself? In the hours and days since Obama's victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love. And though it's too soon to know for sure, experts aren't ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it's scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II). "The mood of the country and the optimism about leadership is always somewhat related to birth rates," says Dr. Manny Alvarez, chief of reproductive science at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey. "I'm gearing up for a healthy increase."

Hope and euphoria, says University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, are a serious aphrodisiac. And voters under 30 went for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1. When you combine those two elements—randy people of child-bearing age—the likely result is what the online Urban Dictionary has already dubbed "Obama Babies" : children "conceived after Obama was proclaimed President, by way of celebratory sex." "If the amount of alcohol, happy people and major functions on election night is any indication, I suspect we'll indeed see a boom," says 25-year-old Brandon Mendelson, a graduate student in Albany, N.Y., who says he changed his vote at the last minute because "I wanted to be able to tell our future children that we voted for Obama."


read it all if you wish..
http://www.newsweek.com/id/169073

Oh boy, millions of new welfare cases.

[Des]

Like I always say, the abuse of welfare doesn't negate its value.

I also think people who support the government handing out bailouts and corporate welfare but don't support welfare for private citizens are hypocrites.

[Immanuel]

Like I always say, the abuse of welfare doesn't negate its value.

I also think people who support the government handing out bailouts and corporate welfare but don't support welfare for private citizens are hypocrites.

First off, I support Welfare to a degree as I believe that it should be a hand up rather than a life long hand out.

Second, the biggest problem we have with Welfare is not so much abuse as it is that the Government takes in but the government doesn't give it out. So much of our tax dollars that could go to serving those in need goes into the pockets of those who don't need.

Welcome to the board Des.

Immie

[5stringJeff]

I think that was his 'election', not assassination.

You're right. My bad.

[PostmodernProphet]

You need an excuse to have sex?

yes....my wife doesn't pay attention to the whining anymore.....

[Des]

First off, I support Welfare to a degree as I believe that it should be a hand up rather than a life long hand out.

Second, the biggest problem we have with Welfare is not so much abuse as it is that the Government takes in but the government doesn't give it out. So much of our tax dollars that could go to serving those in need goes into the pockets of those who don't need.

Welcome to the board Des.

Immie


Well, being a "hand up" is the intention of welfare, those who use it as a lifelong "hand-out" would be the ones abusing it I spoke of :).

[Immanuel]

Well, being a "hand up" is the intention of welfare, those who use it as a lifelong "hand-out" would be the ones abusing it I spoke of :).

Understood, but what I was saying was that I am not opposed to the idea of Welfare. It, like other social programs such as Social Security, have good ideas behind them. The problem being that they need to be brought up to date for the current times.

Just because we know that there are abuses in the Welfare System doesn't mean that we should eliminate the system. Instead we should work to improve the system and close the loopholes that allow it to be abused.

Immie

[Des]

Understood, but what I was saying was that I am not opposed to the idea of Welfare. It, like other social programs such as Social Security, have good ideas behind them. The problem being that they need to be brought up to date for the current times.

Just because we know that there are abuses in the Welfare System doesn't mean that we should eliminate the system. Instead we should work to improve the system and close the loopholes that allow it to be abused.

Immie

I agree. :)

[Kathianne]

Understood, but what I was saying was that I am not opposed to the idea of Welfare. It, like other social programs such as Social Security, have good ideas behind them. The problem being that they need to be brought up to date for the current times.

Just because we know that there are abuses in the Welfare System doesn't mean that we should eliminate the system. Instead we should work to improve the system and close the loopholes that allow it to be abused.

Immie

Welfare though should never be at the federal level.

[Mr. P]

Understood, but what I was saying was that I am not opposed to the idea of Welfare. It, like other social programs such as Social Security, have good ideas behind them. The problem being that they need to be brought up to date for the current times.

Just because we know that there are abuses in the Welfare System doesn't mean that we should eliminate the system. Instead we should work to improve the system and close the loopholes that allow it to be abused.

Immie

If you can show me anything in the Constitution that addresses our "welfare" system I'll reconsider the fact that it is NOT a government function. Proof is Not the phrase "promote the general welfare" or "Provide for the general welfare" but the "welfare" system as we now know it.

[Immanuel]

If you can show me anything in the Constitution that addresses our "welfare" system I'll reconsider the fact that it is NOT a government function. Proof is Not the phrase "promote the general welfare" or "Provide for the general welfare" but the "welfare" system as we now know it.

I have never claimed that "provide for the general welfare" is the basis for which the welfare system is legal. How many laws do we have on the books that are not covered by the Constitution? Thousands?

I don't think murder is covered in the Constitution, is it? The Constitution does not have a phrase, "thou shalt not murder" does it? Marriage is not covered in the Constitution. Let's face it, the Constitution does not enumerate our laws. It simply sets guidelines for how our government will operate.

Welfare is simply on of the laws that came in later. If you can make a case for it being unconstitutional then go for it, but until such a time as it is ruled on by the Supreme Court, it remains a law of the land.

Personally, I believe supporting our poor is a good thing. Unfortunately, I think the government does a crappy job of this.

Immie

[avatar4321]

I have never claimed that "provide for the general welfare" is the basis for which the welfare system is legal. How many laws do we have on the books that are not covered by the Constitution? Thousands?

I don't think murder is covered in the Constitution, is it? The Constitution does not have a phrase, "thou shalt not murder" does it? Marriage is not covered in the Constitution. Let's face it, the Constitution does not enumerate our laws. It simply sets guidelines for how our government will operate.

Welfare is simply on of the laws that came in later. If you can make a case for it being unconstitutional then go for it, but until such a time as it is ruled on by the Supreme Court, it remains a law of the land.

Personally, I believe supporting our poor is a good thing. Unfortunately, I think the government does a crappy job of this.

Immie

Murder isnt a federal crime. It's a state crime.

[Des]

Murder isnt a federal crime. It's a state crime.

Murder is a common-law crime, which would fall under local, federal, and state jurisdictions. According to the court that's conducting the trial, murder could very well be a federal drime.

[avatar4321]

Murder is a common-law crime, which would fall under local, federal, and state jurisdictions. According to the court that's conducting the trial, murder could very well be a federal drime.

First, Federal common law is very limited.
Second, no crime is common law crime. There hasnt been a common law crime in a long time. Its all statutory.

Murder is a state law.

But hey. What the heck do I know. I am just a stupid defense attorney.

[Des]

First, Federal common law is very limited.
Second, no crime is common law crime. There hasnt been a common law crime in a long time. Its all statutory.

Murder is a state law.

But hey. What the heck do I know. I am just a stupid defense attorney.


Then why can murder committed under certain circumstances be considered a federal offense? I always thought common law crimes were laws developed through courts...meaning, laws that were not legislated, but that had been decided in a court case in a specific jurisdiction, and that those courts were bound to abide by. ?

[Yurt]

if i recall the only federal murder statute deals with indian land...out here some bars have indian law on the exam

murder was common law, now it is all statutory, i would be surprised to hear of a state that does not have a statute defining/prohiting murder

[avatar4321]

Then why can murder committed under certain circumstances be considered a federal offense? I always thought common law crimes were laws developed through courts...meaning, laws that were not legislated, but that had been decided in a court case in a specific jurisdiction, and that those courts were bound to abide by. ?

They abolished criminal common law years ago requiring it all to be statutory. The reasoning was that in order for a crime to occur, there has to be knowledge that the crime exists. We cant have judges inventing crimes from the bench.

[Des]

They abolished criminal common law years ago requiring it all to be statutory. The reasoning was that in order for a crime to occur, there has to be knowledge that the crime exists. We cant have judges inventing crimes from the bench.

Okay, I think I was misunderstanding..."they" teach common law to teach about statutory law...

But murder can still be a "statutory" federal crime in some cases, no?

[Immanuel]

What the heck do I know. I am just a stupid defense attorney.

Took the words right out of my mouth changing pronouns that is. :lol:

Fair enough... show me where our Constitution forbids social programs like Welfare and Social Security. Are you actually stating that the constitution forbids government programs such as this?

Immie

[avatar4321]

Took the words right out of my mouth changing pronouns that is. :lol:

Fair enough... show me where our Constitution forbids social programs like Welfare and Social Security. Are you actually stating that the constitution forbids government programs such as this?

Immie

Actually, yes I am.

[Immanuel]

Actually, yes I am.

Well, then can you fill me in as to why you believe that? And if you are correct, then why are we helping the poor at all?

Also, please understand that I WAS kidding about the taking the words right out of my mouth. Sometimes you seem to take things so seriously.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You are after all a "stupid defense attorney". :poke:

Immie

[Mr. P]

Well, then can you fill me in as to why you believe that? And if you are correct, then why are we helping the poor at all?

Also, please understand that I WAS kidding about the taking the words right out of my mouth. Sometimes you seem to take things so seriously.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You are after all a "stupid defense attorney". :poke:

Immie

Buys votes..and the great society stuff. "Welfare" as we know it ain't in the Constitution.

[Hobbit]

Well, then can you fill me in as to why you believe that?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to give tax money to individual citizens except as a payment for services rendered. In fact, the federal government is only given the power to provide for national defense, handle foreign affairs, regulate interstate commerce, and print money. To be perfectly honest, it should have required a Constitutional amendment to allow the fed to build infrastructure.


And if you are correct, then why are we helping the poor at all?

Because during the Great Depression, enough people were willing to allow such programs by that they were not overturned for being against the Constitution. When the Depression ended, politicians figured out that by offering to increase this spending while claiming their opponents would cut it off would get those who received this money to vote for them. Since those few programs made it past the supreme court, later supremes are hesitant to cut it off and politicians saw that as open license to increase it.

Interesting point of fact: Despite the fact that the wording of the Constitution and the writings of the founders clearly spell out limiting powers in such a way, nearly all modern U.S. history textbooks deliberately misinterpret the 9th and 10th amendments, ensuring that the majority of students will be so convinced of this false meaning of the Constitution by the time they (if they ever) become able to actually read and comprehend the 18th century legalese or read through the Federalist Papers. Why, might you ask? The curriculum is set by the Department of Education, a federal branch which is unconstitutional and would be ended if the voting populace both understood and cared about the Constitution, so much so that it was a point of contention between the Republican congress following the 1994 voter revolution and then-president Bill Clinton. Had Republicans kept their 1994 promises when they gained control of the White House, the Department of Education would likely be nothing but a bad memory. Also, the majority of government school teachers voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.