National Guard won't be allowed to stop illegal aliens!

[Wry Catcher]

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

Most haven't read the Constitution; they simply echo the talking points supplied by Limbaugh or Hannity.

I'm a conservative who listens to neither of those guys, and I am hardly alone, so why continue with THAT talking point? I mean do all liberals bask in the glory that is Keith Olbermann?

Talking points are the life blood of conservatives. How about you show me Olbermann's and I'll counter with Limbaugh/Hannity ones (they are the same).

Me first: "Tax cuts grow the economy"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Limbaugh: "Liberal Democrats are inexorably opposed to tax cuts, because tax cuts give people more power, and take away from the role of government."

 

[ConHog]

Most haven't read the Constitution; they simply echo the talking points supplied by Limbaugh or Hannity.

I'm a conservative who listens to neither of those guys, and I am hardly alone, so why continue with THAT talking point? I mean do all liberals bask in the glory that is Keith Olbermann?

Talking points are the life blood of conservatives. How about you show me Olbermann's and I'll counter with Limbaugh/Hannity ones (they are the same).

Me first: "Tax cuts grow the economy"

As I said, I don't listen to Hannity or Rush, nor do I listen to Olbermann

Be that as it may, you didn't address my question. Why do you assume that most if not all conservatives DO listen to them? Most I know do not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Limbaugh: "Obama is a statist. He's an authoritarian. He doesn't want to govern; he wants to rule."

 

[MaggieMae]

States should raise citizen militias on a volunteer no pay basis and let them do the job that the president won't allow the NG to do. Thousands would sign up. The state power of the guard has been essentially usurped by the federal government anyway just like everything else.

Are you people INSANE? The guard is there to do just that G.U.A.R.D. Hello? They're not there to do battle, as if we're at war with Mexico; they're not there to arrest Mexican drug dealers or human traffickers. They're not there to make arrests. That's what the Border Patrol and the DEA do.

 

[MaggieMae]

G.W. Bush did almost the exact same thing. When are Americans gonna' wake up and see the the Gubamint cares not a wit about them?

Businesses want illegal alien slave labor and the politicians want to legalize them to get their votes.

The average Americans' opinion doesn't mean shit to them.

So I guess your first statement should be revised to read "Gubamint AND businesses care not a wit about them."

 

[MaggieMae]

you want armed troops running around our country?

are you all insane?

Yes. I'm convinced of that with each passing day. Seriously.

 

[Avorysuds]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

From what I understand from what I have read “General welfare” only considers what congress has seen as fitting under the term General. Meaning to me, that congress must vote on something to see if it fits under GW, like the HC bills. IMO that means that the elected officials need to be representing their people here and they clearly are not.

Your definition of GW could mean anything at any given time. Your version does what I have read the term GW was exactly NOT meant to do. Your version of GW would outright void the rest of the constitution as at any point congress could just vote of something and stuff it under the CW clause, like the HC bills.

For example, congress could just decide to put up a bill that says it would be safer to not have guns and BAM, just like that it’s over… The constitution turned on itself without citizens having a say. In a sense, your version would mean that congress could pass any law and make themselves kings.

Many of the programs the GW clause was used for (and forced upon the people by FDR it seems with the Supreme Court takeover) have failed, horribly. We are now looking at new entitlement programs that are only hear today as to act as a refurbished version of past failures, nothing more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm a conservative who listens to neither of those guys, and I am hardly alone, so why continue with THAT talking point? I mean do all liberals bask in the glory that is Keith Olbermann?

Talking points are the life blood of conservatives. How about you show me Olbermann's and I'll counter with Limbaugh/Hannity ones (they are the same).

Me first: "Tax cuts grow the economy"

As I said, I don't listen to Hannity or Rush, nor do I listen to Olbermann

Be that as it may, you didn't address my question. Why do you assume that most if not all conservatives DO listen to them? Most I know do not.

I don't assume ALL conservatives listen to Limbaugh or Hannity. I do believe that the self defined conservatives on this and other message boards repeat the talking points of Limbaugh and Hannity, because they do. Now, repeating the talking points does not require listening to talk radio, there are dozen and dozens of sources of RW propaganda, including Fox TV 'News', the "Washington Times" web sites by the Hetitage Foundation, message boards such as this.
By self defined I am not suggesting they are really conservative; they seem to hold so many contradictory positions on issues it's hard to characterize them as conservatives - Fringers seems most appropriate.

PS, a good example of someone not understanding an issue, or our Constitution, and framing the talking point they do understand was posted by Avorysuds above.

 

[jillian]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

From what I understand from what I have read “General welfare” only considers what congress has seen as fitting under the term General. Meaning to me, that congress must vote on something to see if it fits under GW, like the HC bills. IMO that means that the elected officials need to be representing their people here and they clearly are not.

Your definition of GW could mean anything at any given time. Your version does what I have read the term GW was exactly NOT meant to do. Your version of GW would outright void the rest of the constitution as at any point congress could just vote of something and stuff it under the CW clause, like the HC bills.

For example, congress could just decide to put up a bill that says it would be safer to not have guns and BAM, just like that it’s over… The constitution turned on itself without citizens having a say. In a sense, your version would mean that congress could pass any law and make themselves kings.

Many of the programs the GW clause was used for (and forced upon the people by FDR it seems with the Supreme Court takeover) have failed, horribly. We are now looking at new entitlement programs that are only hear today as to act as a refurbished version of past failures, nothing more.

They are not *my* definitions of the general welfare clause. If the Constitution intended that clause to have limits, it would have said so.

As for your opinion of the programs or of the Court, I'll simply say that the Court does not agree with you and it is, perhaps, in a better position to define the law.

 

[MaggieMae]

you want armed troops running around our country?

are you all insane?

we have them, they are called drug cartels, you are the insane one.

If there wasn't a huge market for their product here, they would go elsewhere. Put down your pipe and needles, and that would solve 99% of that problem.

 

[ConHog]

States should raise citizen militias on a volunteer no pay basis and let them do the job that the president won't allow the NG to do. Thousands would sign up. The state power of the guard has been essentially usurped by the federal government anyway just like everything else.

Are you people INSANE? The guard is there to do just that G.U.A.R.D. Hello? They're not there to do battle, as if we're at war with Mexico; they're not there to arrest Mexican drug dealers or human traffickers. They're not there to make arrests. That's what the Border Patrol and the DEA do.

What exactly are they supposed to guard then? I'm confused.

By the way, Guard members have served honorably in every modern war our nation has fought in, so to claim that they are not their to battle is an incorrect statement.

As for your statements of the guard and the DEA and border patrol. I would actually agree with you under current law, even though that is what I did for 10 years. It's only slightly disingenuous to place a guard unit under direct authority of the DEA but declare them technically under the command of the state governor to avoid the whole nasty issue of not having federalized troops fulfilling a law enforcement role. Clearly drug enforcement is a law enforcement role, and as I said to Ravi, I in NOWAY answered to the governer of Arkansas while performing my duties.

Border Patrol. meh, that's a different matter, maybe.......... I could definitely see that being redefined as not being a law enforcement role, but as for now, that is exactly how it is defined and so I must agree that the NG actually shouldn't be doing it. Even though I've been there and done that myself and want them there.

 

[MaggieMae]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

The Constitution didn't call for the common OFFENSE, either. Where were you when certain tenets of the Constitution were expanded before?

 

[ConHog]

Talking points are the life blood of conservatives. How about you show me Olbermann's and I'll counter with Limbaugh/Hannity ones (they are the same).

Me first: "Tax cuts grow the economy"

As I said, I don't listen to Hannity or Rush, nor do I listen to Olbermann

Be that as it may, you didn't address my question. Why do you assume that most if not all conservatives DO listen to them? Most I know do not.

I don't assume ALL conservatives listen to Limbaugh or Hannity. I do believe that the self defined conservatives on this and other message boards repeat the talking points of Limbaugh and Hannity, because they do. Now, repeating the talking points does not require listening to talk radio, there are dozen and dozens of sources of RW propaganda, including Fox TV 'News', the "Washington Times" web sites by the Hetitage Foundation, message boards such as this.
By self defined I am not suggesting they are really conservative; they seem to hold so many contradictory positions on issues it's hard to characterize them as conservatives - Fringers seems most appropriate.

PS, a good example of someone not understanding an issue, or our Constitution, and framing the talking point they do understand was posted by Avorysuds above.

Okay, and an example on the left could be found in any of the numerous threads about say AZ SB1070 in which people were just repeating what they have heard or read about the bill even though they had never read the bill and had no clue as to what it actually said.

So , we're agreed that SOME people from the left and from the right spew shit out of their cock holsters without actually knowing what they are talking about? Because I will certainly stipulate THAT happens from SOME of the righties on this board, will you agree that it also comes from SOME of the lefties?

Perhaps we could call it the parrot syndrome

 

[MaggieMae]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

 

[ConHog]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

The Constitution didn't call for the common OFFENSE, either. Where were you when certain tenets of the Constitution were expanded before?

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Meaning I'd rather fight them there then here. Now that doesn't apply to Mexico of course , I don't suggest we invade Mexico... I want that clear so later on some loon isn't posting that I said let's invade Mexico. But it does apply to the border situation in general, taking an offensive defensive posture ( I know, sounds weird but it's a legitimate military doctrine) is better than just simply waiting til they are here and then dealing with them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

Maybe once they regain "power," they'll start to rewrite it, just like they have textbooks and The Bible.

 

[ConHog]

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

Please don't generalize. Not all "cons" want to repeal the 14th , and even those who do, don't want to repeal the whole thing, MOST sane people simply want a clarification on whether illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US. if it is ruled that they do qualify under the 14th then yes there is talk of AMENDING the COTUS to rectify that, but guess what, that's the American Way. Guess what else? It is unAmerican to suggest that people shouldn't advocate for an Amendment if they believe one is needed.

 

[del]

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

the 14th amendment, like many things, has outlived its usefulness.

 

[ConHog]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

From what I understand from what I have read “General welfare” only considers what congress has seen as fitting under the term General. Meaning to me, that congress must vote on something to see if it fits under GW, like the HC bills. IMO that means that the elected officials need to be representing their people here and they clearly are not.

Your definition of GW could mean anything at any given time. Your version does what I have read the term GW was exactly NOT meant to do. Your version of GW would outright void the rest of the constitution as at any point congress could just vote of something and stuff it under the CW clause, like the HC bills.

For example, congress could just decide to put up a bill that says it would be safer to not have guns and BAM, just like that it’s over… The constitution turned on itself without citizens having a say. In a sense, your version would mean that congress could pass any law and make themselves kings.

Many of the programs the GW clause was used for (and forced upon the people by FDR it seems with the Supreme Court takeover) have failed, horribly. We are now looking at new entitlement programs that are only hear today as to act as a refurbished version of past failures, nothing more.

Your analogy is flawed. Congress shall pass NO laws which infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. That means they can NOT repeal it. Now I suppose that technically speaking we COULD pass an amendment nullifying the 2nd or the 1st or whatever, but Congress could hardly do that on their own.

I personally believe Congress overstepped their powers with the HC bill, but you certainly can't point to a spot in the COTUS that says you are guaranteed the right to now have health insurance.