<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: It&#8217;s Time For  Constitutional Convention</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:25:29 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141618</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141618</guid>
		<description>resident Eisenhower backed and signed the first two pieces of significant civil rights legislation in America in 1956 and 1960. He also appointed Republican judges in the south who moved Brown vs. The Board of Education to the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower was… say it with me… A Republican.

The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was back by 82% of Republicans in Congress while only 62 % of Democrats supported the measure. Opposition to the bill was led by Robert Byrd… Democrat! These other well know Senators also voted against the bill: Albert Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Richard Russell, and James Eastland–all Democrats! Two other well know historical figures were prominent in the segregation movement: George Wallace and Orval Faubus, both tried to block black students from attending “white” schools, both were Democrats. It is also interesting to note that both Faubus and Fulbright were counted as mentors by… anyone? William J. Clinton, who I believe was also a Democrat.
Now that you have been spanked at who was truly for civil rights, lets take a look at the smaller government claim.
Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, government had to grow bureaucracies like chancres, in order to accomodate his &quot;League of Nations&quot; stupid idea., but it was under FDR that the bureaucracies grew like a festering sore, which WWII slowed, and finally put a temporary stop to- Under Kennedy and then Johnson, The Peace Corps, and the &quot;Great Society&quot; began, and like the virus they are, have mutated into Amerikacorps, and other entitlement organizations.
Republicans are smarter than that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>resident Eisenhower backed and signed the first two pieces of significant civil rights legislation in America in 1956 and 1960. He also appointed Republican judges in the south who moved Brown vs. The Board of Education to the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower was… say it with me… A Republican.</p>
<p>The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was back by 82% of Republicans in Congress while only 62 % of Democrats supported the measure. Opposition to the bill was led by Robert Byrd… Democrat! These other well know Senators also voted against the bill: Albert Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Richard Russell, and James Eastland–all Democrats! Two other well know historical figures were prominent in the segregation movement: George Wallace and Orval Faubus, both tried to block black students from attending “white” schools, both were Democrats. It is also interesting to note that both Faubus and Fulbright were counted as mentors by… anyone? William J. Clinton, who I believe was also a Democrat.<br />
Now that you have been spanked at who was truly for civil rights, lets take a look at the smaller government claim.<br />
Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, government had to grow bureaucracies like chancres, in order to accomodate his &#8220;League of Nations&#8221; stupid idea., but it was under FDR that the bureaucracies grew like a festering sore, which WWII slowed, and finally put a temporary stop to- Under Kennedy and then Johnson, The Peace Corps, and the &#8220;Great Society&#8221; began, and like the virus they are, have mutated into Amerikacorps, and other entitlement organizations.<br />
Republicans are smarter than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141314</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141314</guid>
		<description>BLK: SS has no money of its own, just IOUs&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Those dollars in your pocket?

  IOU&#039;s.

  I wish I had a stack of $1000 bills going 151 miles in the air.

  That&#039;s what SS has.

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLK: SS has no money of its own, just IOUs&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Those dollars in your pocket?</p>
<p>  IOU&#8217;s.</p>
<p>  I wish I had a stack of $1000 bills going 151 miles in the air.</p>
<p>  That&#8217;s what SS has.</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141272</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141272</guid>
		<description>ANYTHING &quot;according to the United Nations&quot; has to naturally be viewed with EXTREME skepticism- indeed, it is safer and truer to assume the opposite of whatever it is they are touting, thus.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ANYTHING &#8220;according to the United Nations&#8221; has to naturally be viewed with EXTREME skepticism- indeed, it is safer and truer to assume the opposite of whatever it is they are touting, thus&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141255</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141255</guid>
		<description>BLK: &quot;It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D?&quot;&gt;&gt;

DAR
  What&#039;s embarrassing? No, my comment about embarrassing was regarding you lying, all the time. You should be ashamed of your behavior.

My parents belonged to a religion that caused me to be raised in a manner that was completely non-political. For instance, when the national anthem was played in Canada I was not allowed to stand for it. So I am about as non-patriotic as it gets. I don&#039;t have much use for tribalism.

But I do like truth, getting the facts straight, and I don&#039;t like fools, the voluntarily ignorant and liars. That&#039;s why we are not likely to ever get along well.

Regarding Canada being &quot;embarrassed,&quot; (this is going to sound patriotic but...) I was doing a little snooping around and stumbled upon this little tidbit I had forgotten about. Guess which country has the coveted position of having the won &quot;highest quality of life&quot; more than any other country on the planet?

D.
--------------------
&quot;Most years attaining the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 10 out of 19 years
Field: Quality of life 2009&quot;

Answer: Canada

&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistically_superlative_countries&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;List of statistically superlative countries&lt;/a&gt;.

So I don&#039;t think they have too much to be embarrassed about.

&quot;...a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, *health care,* income, employment, etc. The HDI attempts to measure a country&#039;s development.&quot;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LINK&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLK: &#8220;It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D?&#8221;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  What&#8217;s embarrassing? No, my comment about embarrassing was regarding you lying, all the time. You should be ashamed of your behavior.</p>
<p>My parents belonged to a religion that caused me to be raised in a manner that was completely non-political. For instance, when the national anthem was played in Canada I was not allowed to stand for it. So I am about as non-patriotic as it gets. I don&#8217;t have much use for tribalism.</p>
<p>But I do like truth, getting the facts straight, and I don&#8217;t like fools, the voluntarily ignorant and liars. That&#8217;s why we are not likely to ever get along well.</p>
<p>Regarding Canada being &#8220;embarrassed,&#8221; (this is going to sound patriotic but&#8230;) I was doing a little snooping around and stumbled upon this little tidbit I had forgotten about. Guess which country has the coveted position of having the won &#8220;highest quality of life&#8221; more than any other country on the planet?</p>
<p>D.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
&#8220;Most years attaining the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 10 out of 19 years<br />
Field: Quality of life 2009&#8243;</p>
<p>Answer: Canada</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistically_superlative_countries" rel="nofollow">List of statistically superlative countries</a>.</p>
<p>So I don&#8217;t think they have too much to be embarrassed about.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, *health care,* income, employment, etc. The HDI attempts to measure a country&#8217;s development.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index" rel="nofollow">LINK</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141182</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141182</guid>
		<description>It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn&#039;t it D? There is just too much Inconvenient truth there for you? Of course you are Canuk, so hometeam bias comes into play, I can understand, it is hard to see your homies be so incompetent, but that&#039;s life----- Ooops- perhaps that is not life, but death.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn&#8217;t it D? There is just too much Inconvenient truth there for you? Of course you are Canuk, so hometeam bias comes into play, I can understand, it is hard to see your homies be so incompetent, but that&#8217;s life&#8212;&#8211; Ooops- perhaps that is not life, but death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141181</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141181</guid>
		<description>Doing so unsustainably means we will not be able to put any money back fast enough to pay out claims-
As it is now, SS has no money of its own, just IOUs that Congress replaced the money with. Most of our government has been running on the SS money that has been borrowed.
I am sorry that you are confused by my comments- they are fairly simple, even an atheist like you should understand them- try reading s-l-o-w-l-y.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doing so unsustainably means we will not be able to put any money back fast enough to pay out claims-<br />
As it is now, SS has no money of its own, just IOUs that Congress replaced the money with. Most of our government has been running on the SS money that has been borrowed.<br />
I am sorry that you are confused by my comments- they are fairly simple, even an atheist like you should understand them- try reading s-l-o-w-l-y.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141172</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141172</guid>
		<description>Democrats gave us big government under FDR during the great depression.  Want to reduce the money problems, get rid of the social welfare.  Defense accounts for about 25% of the budget.  Welfare is a much larger chunk.  One of these is Constitutional.

I don&#039;t trust either party to handle the problems.

No Darrel, there is NO money in the bank.  If we had money tucked away we would not be borrowing from China.  There is no money to pay for Social Security, it was spent on other things instead of being put away.  If they put it away insolvency would not be an issue.  If they let us invest our own money (at least as an option) we would not have a problem.

Yes, we spend more on our military than a lot of others.  Might explain why they always call us when they need something.  Might also explain why no one has invaded us and tried to take over.

I point out again, the military is Constitutional.  Social programs are not.  And more is spent here on social programs than on the military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Democrats gave us big government under FDR during the great depression.  Want to reduce the money problems, get rid of the social welfare.  Defense accounts for about 25% of the budget.  Welfare is a much larger chunk.  One of these is Constitutional.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t trust either party to handle the problems.</p>
<p>No Darrel, there is NO money in the bank.  If we had money tucked away we would not be borrowing from China.  There is no money to pay for Social Security, it was spent on other things instead of being put away.  If they put it away insolvency would not be an issue.  If they let us invest our own money (at least as an option) we would not have a problem.</p>
<p>Yes, we spend more on our military than a lot of others.  Might explain why they always call us when they need something.  Might also explain why no one has invaded us and tried to take over.</p>
<p>I point out again, the military is Constitutional.  Social programs are not.  And more is spent here on social programs than on the military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141171</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141171</guid>
		<description>Actually we are both wrong.  A billion dollars is 358 feet high.  A trillion is 69 miles high.

I was thinking a stack of 100 dollar bills when I wrote this.  A stack of 100 doallar bills would reach about 678 miles high.  Fun can be dyslexia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually we are both wrong.  A billion dollars is 358 feet high.  A trillion is 69 miles high.</p>
<p>I was thinking a stack of 100 dollar bills when I wrote this.  A stack of 100 doallar bills would reach about 678 miles high.  Fun can be dyslexia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141165</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141165</guid>
		<description>BLK: &quot;waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Actually, about half are considered urgent and done immediately. 

As for the non-urgent cases, they are as I carefully referenced from an extensive study:

“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.”  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LINK&lt;/a&gt;

BLK: if they do not deny you completely.&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Another advantage of the Canadian system. If your doctor says you need it, you get it. No exceptions because there are no insurance companies to haggle with (about 1 in 5 insurance claims are denied in the US).

Why do you find it useful to tell such obvious lies? I can&#039;t imagine it impresses anyone, and it&#039;s kind of embarrassing.

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BLK: &#8220;waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Actually, about half are considered urgent and done immediately. </p>
<p>As for the non-urgent cases, they are as I carefully referenced from an extensive study:</p>
<p>“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.”  <a href="http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf" rel="nofollow">LINK</a></p>
<p>BLK: if they do not deny you completely.&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Another advantage of the Canadian system. If your doctor says you need it, you get it. No exceptions because there are no insurance companies to haggle with (about 1 in 5 insurance claims are denied in the US).</p>
<p>Why do you find it useful to tell such obvious lies? I can&#8217;t imagine it impresses anyone, and it&#8217;s kind of embarrassing.</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-time-for-constitutional-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-141164</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=8011#comment-141164</guid>
		<description>Bigd: &quot;a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high.&quot;&gt;&gt;

DAR
  Not even close. Four inches is a million dollars. A trillion is a stack only &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-11-how-much-trillion&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;358 feet high.&lt;/a&gt; You&#039;re off by about 11,300x.

I prefer this example. Put $1 bills end to end. Then a trillion dollars goes from the earth to a little past the sun (90+ million miles).

D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bigd: &#8220;a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high.&#8221;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p>DAR<br />
  Not even close. Four inches is a million dollars. A trillion is a stack only <a href="http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-11-how-much-trillion" rel="nofollow">358 feet high.</a> You&#8217;re off by about 11,300x.</p>
<p>I prefer this example. Put $1 bills end to end. Then a trillion dollars goes from the earth to a little past the sun (90+ million miles).</p>
<p>D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

