Woodruff wrote:In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.
Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.
You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.
Funny how your argument changes when it's something you like. You're no more a Constitutionalist than Phatscotty is a Libertarian. Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
Woodruff wrote:You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
Woodruff wrote:Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
If you're against foreign aid, why the focus on Israel?
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
As long as the money is provided by private donations and not public dollars/mandates.
Because, yes you may not have a vote, and taxdollars are needed for an unfunded war you do not support, but good grief, lets not do anything that might actually be good for society. as long as i am not inflicted with it, i dont want to pay for it....
Support for government spending on A comes with government spending on B, C, and D. That's how it works. We have plenty of well-intended voters going for the goodie-two shoe feeling of welfare entitlements, but they forget the whole package deal of political promises and forget about logrolling (political vote swapping).
Most voters that support government spending for whatever simply don't understand how politics works.
Woodruff wrote:In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I guess the abortion issue isn't actually as important to you as you claim.
Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.
You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.
Funny how your argument changes when it's something you like. You're no more a Constitutionalist than Phatscotty is a Libertarian. Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
What part of the constitution does it violate?
A better question is...Where in the Constitution is it authorized?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
Woodruff wrote:Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
If you're against foreign aid, why the focus on Israel?
Because I'm aware of Night Strike's position regarding Israel.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Night Strike wrote:Nope, I want the government to not provide things it can't afford and it isn't Constitutionally authorized to do.
You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.
Funny how your argument changes when it's something you like. You're no more a Constitutionalist than Phatscotty is a Libertarian. Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
What part of the constitution does it violate?
A better question is...Where in the Constitution is it authorized?
Woodruff wrote:You mean like foreign aid to Israel? I don't recall you saying that should be eliminated.
It is the federal government's roll to establish relationships with other nations. If you don't like an agreement with another nation, vote people into office who will change or remove those agreements.
Funny how your argument changes when it's something you like. You're no more a Constitutionalist than Phatscotty is a Libertarian. Foreign aid is unConstitutional and is not something that we can afford.
What part of the constitution does it violate?
A better question is...Where in the Constitution is it authorized?
So you haven't answered the question...
Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?
By the federal government being the one who enters into treaties and relations with other nations. I already said that.
Woodruff wrote:Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?
By the federal government being the one who enters into treaties and relations with other nations. I already said that.
So then you agree that ObamaCare is a valid use of the General Welfare Clause. Glad to hear it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?
By the federal government being the one who enters into treaties and relations with other nations. I already said that.
So then you agree that ObamaCare is a valid use of the General Welfare Clause. Glad to hear it.
Nope, because the Constitution is not designed to provide for specific welfare payments to individuals. Furthermore, the government telling you to purchase a product simply because you are alive is unconstitutional.
Woodruff wrote:Your question makes no sense. The Constitution authorizes...if something is not authorized by the Constitution, then that is precisely how it violates the Constitution. You yourself have used this very statement in these fora. So....where in the Constitution is foreign aid authorized?
By the federal government being the one who enters into treaties and relations with other nations. I already said that.
So then you agree that ObamaCare is a valid use of the General Welfare Clause. Glad to hear it.
Nope, because the Constitution is not designed to provide for specific welfare payments to individuals.
Where in the Constitution does it state that?
Night Strike wrote:Furthermore, the government telling you to purchase a product simply because you are alive is unconstitutional.
Not according to the Supreme Court. You don't consider them the arbiters of what is Constitutional?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
It's always the LIBERAL judges who do that, isn't it?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Night Strike wrote:change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
It's almost like that was the point of the document or something. Strange.
Where in the Constitution does it say that elected (or non-elected) people can change it based on how they feel that day? If you want to change the Constitution, you follow the specified amendment process.
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Corporations are groups of people and since we have the freedom of association, those groups also have the freedom of speech. You cannot keep people from speaking simply because they are part of a group. The government does not have the authority to decide which groups are allowed to speak and which ones aren't.
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Corporations are groups of people and since we have the freedom of association, those groups also have the freedom of speech. You cannot keep people from speaking simply because they are part of a group. The government does not have the authority to decide which groups are allowed to speak and which ones aren't.
That you persist in patently ignoring that giving a group rights equal to any other individual effectively gives that group MORE power, becuase, among other reasons they still hold their individual rights to speech, etc. pretty much shows how little you have actually thought this out.
In what universe does saying a corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't have individual rights of speech mean that each individual within that corporation has no right to free speech .
Your "reasoning" had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling, anyway.
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Because he likes that part. That's different.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Corporations are groups of people and since we have the freedom of association, those groups also have the freedom of speech. You cannot keep people from speaking simply because they are part of a group. The government does not have the authority to decide which groups are allowed to speak and which ones aren't.
That you persist in patently ignoring that giving a group rights equal to any other individual effectively gives that group MORE power, becuase, among other reasons they still hold their individual rights to speech, etc. pretty much shows how little you have actually thought this out.
In what universe does saying a corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't have individual rights of speech mean that each individual within that corporation has no right to free speech .
Your "reasoning" had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling, anyway.
So people shouldn't be allowed to come together to promote a political position or candidate they all support individually?
Night Strike wrote:Actually, the Supreme Court did say that you can't force a person to participate in the marketplace. However, they then unconstitutionally rewrote the law to claim it was a tax and to say that taxing powers are allowed. And the Supreme Court has been known to take unconstitutional actions in the past in addition to this one, so it's not a huge surprise. That's what happens when you have a minimum of 4 judges who will always believe that they can change the Constitution based on their personal whims instead of the intent of the document.
and yet, you saw no problem with them just declaring that corporations were people....
Corporations are groups of people and since we have the freedom of association, those groups also have the freedom of speech. You cannot keep people from speaking simply because they are part of a group. The government does not have the authority to decide which groups are allowed to speak and which ones aren't.
That you persist in patently ignoring that giving a group rights equal to any other individual effectively gives that group MORE power, becuase, among other reasons they still hold their individual rights to speech, etc. pretty much shows how little you have actually thought this out.
In what universe does saying a corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't have individual rights of speech mean that each individual within that corporation has no right to free speech .
Your "reasoning" had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling, anyway.
So people shouldn't be allowed to come together to promote a political position or candidate they all support individually?
No one has questioned that. The point is whether forming as a group should give them the right to ALSO have the group be considered as an individual, with the full rights of individuals.
Symmetry wrote: Oh please, quit the histrionics. Akin has his fair share of defenders, even on this site.
Taking up arms against his critics ain't exactly a good way to indicate that you don't believe in his nonsense.
by "defenders" do you mean people who agree with his rape comments? cuz i haven't seen anyone defend those.
all i see is republicans saying "wtf we don't believe that" and democrats saying "YES YOU DO, you're all equally stupid"
Why do you think Sym chose to insert some Akin commentary in this thread?
What could his motives be?
i call it the "palin reflex"
it's a strange pattern of behavior where the subject, when confronted with an ideology they dislike but cannot refute, chooses instead to cite a stupid person who believes in said ideology, in an attempt to discredit the ideology as a whole. usually the stupid person is hyped by the media as a representative of the ideology, in order to foster this delusion.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
.
