Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, to get it clear:
Feds can secure the shipping port for BMW in Charleston
Feds can secure and maintain the shipping roads for BMW from Chas to Atlanta
Feds can NOT provide aid to the same city that port is in when it is hit by a hurricane?
Surely that isn't what the GOP wants me to vote in support of.
To the city? No.. To fix its portion of the port where interstate or international commerce is taking place? Yes...
Whether you wish to support the government working within the confines of its founding document (the document that specifically grants and limits the powers of the federal government), is up to you.. it should not be a GOP or DEM issue, it is an issue of adherence to the law... and you are either for that, or against that.. and if you are against it, you are more than welcome to help in any way to use the amendment process to amend the constitution to change it
Wow. Well, thanks for the honesty.
It reaffirms why I will not be voting for any far right, Tea Party or GOP candidates this fall, as that mentality seems to be shared by more on that side.
And may I add, I pray your home city isn't hit by a natural disaster. I would GLADLY support my federal government violating the Constitution by sending you aid, even my tax dollar aid. How can a sane human NOT support that just because a 250 year old piece of paper didn't say so?
Oh....and I'm guessing you do not speed even 1mph over the limit right? You know, "rule of law" and all.
It appears that you have become an actual conservative instead of a libertarian.It's interesting that you bring that up. After Katrina, a lot of libertarians and uber-rightwingers were against helping Louisiana. And yet the main reason the city flooded was because the Mississippi river had been rerouted to the point that made flooding a certainty--all to accommodate shipping throughout the entire country.
In an application of their logic:
One would have to argue that, if a huge fire broke out in Honolulu, and the Honolulu Fire Dept was overwhelmed, that the firefighters of the US Navy at Pearl Harbor would be forbidden by the Constitution from assisting.
Thats their logic in action. How can one vote for that?
Pretty cool. Libertarians are the bane of our existence, imo.
I'm starting to see that.
This one is arguing that it is OK for the Feds to secure and maintain the shipping lanes for BMW, Microsoft, WalMart to move their for-profit materials through the Charleston Port, onto Charleston roads, and through South Carolina highways.
BUT, when Charleston is hammered by a hurricane, that same federal govt cannot provide aid.
So, the Constitution allows the Feds to aid BMW and WalMart, but not the City of Charleston, SC??????
Did anyone say the fed was supposed to help WalMart or any company? No.. It was stated to have the fed be responsible only for the things within the scope of its constitutionally charged power
Nice try though.. try to refrain from lying about what was said
People in Charleston wouldn't be able to shop online without power. In the name of Interstate Commerce, wouldnt the Feds need to restore power to the city?
To the city? No.. To fix its portion of the port where interstate or international commerce is taking place? Yes...
Whether you wish to support the government working within the confines of its founding document (the document that specifically grants and limits the powers of the federal government), is up to you.. it should not be a GOP or DEM issue, it is an issue of adherence to the law... and you are either for that, or against that.. and if you are against it, you are more than welcome to help in any way to use the amendment process to amend the constitution to change it
Wow. Well, thanks for the honesty.
It reaffirms why I will not be voting for any far right, Tea Party or GOP candidates this fall, as that mentality seems to be shared by more on that side.
And may I add, I pray your home city isn't hit by a natural disaster. I would GLADLY support my federal government violating the Constitution by sending you aid, even my tax dollar aid. How can a sane human NOT support that just because a 250 year old piece of paper didn't say so?
Oh....and I'm guessing you do not speed even 1mph over the limit right? You know, "rule of law" and all.
Whether you would support it or any charity is irrelevant
You wish for the government to have unlimited power, unrestrained by the constitution...
I stand for a constitution that specifically grants and limits the federal government, but also a constitution that has the ability to be amended thru the proper process
Government regulates interstate commerce, thus government certainly has the legal right to step in and assist when utility companies go down because of a hurricane.
Did anyone say the fed was supposed to help WalMart or any company? No.. It was stated to have the fed be responsible only for the things within the scope of its constitutionally charged power
Nice try though.. try to refrain from lying about what was said
People in Charleston wouldn't be able to shop online without power. In the name of Interstate Commerce, wouldnt the Feds need to restore power to the city?
The power company is a federally owned and operated thing??
Ehh.. wrong answer
Government does not prop up nor control whether a company is specifically able to do its business... It secures the laws of commerce, the security of commerce, and the freedom of commerce within the law
Government regulates interstate commerce, thus government certainly has the legal right to step in and assist when utility companies go down because of a hurricane.
No.. that is assisting or enabling the company to do business... not whether the law, regulation, or freedom to participate in interstate commerce is in place and secured
Wow. Well, thanks for the honesty.
It reaffirms why I will not be voting for any far right, Tea Party or GOP candidates this fall, as that mentality seems to be shared by more on that side.
And may I add, I pray your home city isn't hit by a natural disaster. I would GLADLY support my federal government violating the Constitution by sending you aid, even my tax dollar aid. How can a sane human NOT support that just because a 250 year old piece of paper didn't say so?
Oh....and I'm guessing you do not speed even 1mph over the limit right? You know, "rule of law" and all.
Whether you would support it or any charity is irrelevant
You wish for the government to have unlimited power, unrestrained by the constitution...
I stand for a constitution that specifically grants and limits the federal government, but also a constitution that has the ability to be amended thru the proper process
Not true. I'm a former cop, and the 4th Amendment is a MUST in our society to restrain armed law enforcement from tyranny on the people.
So I suspect you would amend it to allow giving aid to a disaster area?
People in Charleston wouldn't be able to shop online without power. In the name of Interstate Commerce, wouldnt the Feds need to restore power to the city?
The power company is a federally owned and operated thing??
Ehh.. wrong answer
Government does not prop up nor control whether a company is specifically able to do its business... It secures the laws of commerce, the security of commerce, and the freedom of commerce within the law
No. But neither is Delta or US Air. And the Feds put armed men on there to secure it in the name of interstate commerce, right? The Federal Govt doesn't own the SC State Port in Charleston, but the Feds provide policing for it through DHS.
You aren't being consistent.
wow this is a confused mess. I agree with you that a government should not be run like a business but it should also not be treated as a vehicle for wealth distribution. The government should lower taxes and it should cut spending and it should get rid of people and cut salaries. The government is a parasite on the economy it takes money out of the economy and adds nothing of value. The prices that you list as going up are going up because of government meddling. Also you seem to be confusing local government services with federal services and they are completely different.
A catch-phrase I hear a lot is how government should be run "like a business". WHY????? I doubt many people would actually LIKE govt when it is "run like a business". Here is why:
When a business is struggling, they do a combination of things. Reducing pay for workers is one. Downsizing is another. The beloved private sector has surely shown us that, through emotionless layoffs and outsourcing. But hey, "its just business".
But they also do something else. Raise prices. As we've seen in gas, food, power, water, clothing...really anything we need, the price has gone up. But again, hey, its just business.
So if a government was run like a business, what would it look like? Well, a few thing:
1) Less government workers and programs. Downsizing and outsourcing (by saying let the private sector do it). If we look at supply/demand models that the biz world does, "demand" for government has skyrocketed in our society. People call 911 for damn near ANYTHING these days. Any problem at all, people of all parties say "Someone needs to DO SOMETHING!!". That someone, to most, means the government. THey demand the president, governor, sheriff, mayor, chief, or someone to do something. Keep us safe. Keep us healthy, fix the traffic problems, pave the roads, keep the illegals and terrorists out, keep the air and water clean, etc, etc, etc.
But do they wanna pay for it? REMEMBER: Supply and demand. If they aren't willing to pay for it....be ready to consume far less government, and STOP asking the govt to do as much. A realistic analysis by a fair minded person will inevitably acknowledge our society does have a high demand for government in practical terms if not ideological.
2) "Raise prices". The government...er, business....provides a serivce. Which as I've stated above, is a service that is in high demand right now in society. Well, the government's "price" is the tax rate. If the govt is in debt, they must "run it like a business" by downsizing, outsourcing, and raising prices. Sure, some say lower prices/taxes will bring in more customers and revenue. And that is often true. BUT if so, why have prices for food, water, power, gas, clothing spiked lately???
Seems if raising prices works for the private businesses who produce food, water, power, clothes, gas..................why would a government NOT run it like a business and raise their prices (taxes/fees) also?
So, can someone explain to me why, if the government is run like a business, would they not also raise their prices exactly the same way that JIF Peanut Butter, Exxon Oil, the local water and power companies, Cheerios cereal, Regal Cinemas, and any scores of numbers of other private sector companies have done??????????
(**To head it off early, I know the response of "But we can choose to buy a product, we dont choose to pay taxes" is coming. Answer: You choose which city to pay taxes in. And really....do any of us realistically have a choice but to buy power, water, food and gas? No, we dont. Those are staples of survival. That argument is voided.)
So....are we really ready for government to be run like a business? If you were a victim of a horrible crime, and the local police couldn't solve it because they cut costs and lost all their experienced detectives.......would you accept the neighboring city's PD saying "Sorry, we cant loan you one of our experienced detectives, you dont pay taxes here, our taxpayers dont pay to help you. Sorry, but it's just business."
Food for thought.
Ernie, you guys are headed for defeat this fall. Neither Obama nor Romney believe in libertarianism and Ryan will be exactly where Romney wants him: under his boot heel.
Romney will tell the far right in Congress what he wants. If the TPM does not come through, MR will deal with the dems.
Either way, you lose.
I know I know you will prove at sometime in the future..............
It's a joke, as is nearly every post from JokeStarkey
The TEA Party response would have been for individuals to donate food water medicine, whatever was needed, load it into a privately owned truck, fueled with private diesel fuel and driven by a volunteer driver and deliver it to a central location where state and local governments could distribute it where needed.So, in the original 13 states, under President George Washington, if one state suffered a horrific drought and famine........and needed the Federal help with food (like shipping food on US ships to them) would Washington had said "No, let them starve."
No, he wouldn't. He would've tried to send federal help if possible. Would he have violated the Constitution? Would he have been helping "The Union" or "The People" in that case?
that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...
And you have zero basis in your assumption
And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you
Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"
Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
And you claimed that 90% of your conservative values remained despite your stupid selfish flip.
YOU ARE A JOKE AND A FRAUD
The TEA Party response would have been for individuals to donate food water medicine, whatever was needed, load it into a privately owned truck, fueled with private diesel fuel and driven by a volunteer driver and deliver it to a central location where state and local governments could distribute it where needed.that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...
And you have zero basis in your assumption
And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you
Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"
Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
And you claimed that 90% of your conservative values remained despite your stupid selfish flip.
YOU ARE A JOKE AND A FRAUD
So, 'Conservative' values today are not paying taxes for services. Rather, make the working poor and middle class pay the taxes.
The TEA Party response would have been for individuals to donate food water medicine, whatever was needed, load it into a privately owned truck, fueled with private diesel fuel and driven by a volunteer driver and deliver it to a central location where state and local governments could distribute it where needed.Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
So, asshole, where were you guys then?
