Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[antagon]

Nice try....

It is a lame argument to state that those who supported smaller government, lesser government intervention, lesser authority for the government to seize property, and supported private property rights were 'liberal'.. they were revolutionary and advancing the concepts of a free society...

For you to think that conservatism means support of an oppressive rule, is simply nothing more than your little made up fantasy to try and demonize conservatives

You are more of a buffoon than we thought

You are attempting to apply 21st century political philosophies to the 18th century. Founding fathers were decidedly Liberal for the 18th century. In the 18th century there was no UNITED STATES, there was only a confederation of states that were united. Due to the dispersion of States, lack of a communications or transportation system there was no way to execute a UNITED STATES with a strong federal government. By default, we needed a State-centric government. Each state also had strong loyalties to the states themselves.
This does not make them conservative. What makes the founding fathers the LIBERALs of THEIR DAY (not 2009) was the pushing of the rights of the individual over the rights of the state and the pushing of equal rights of all citizens (except for women, blacks and indians )

18th century conservatives were Torries and were loyal to the crown

Ah the liberals of their day, But by todays standards (we do live in today I believe) they are quite Conservative. Therefore the USA was founded by right wing conservatives.

conservatism is relative.

are you saying the government should be the same size it was then?

i think that reasonable persons have come far beyond assuming that the government should be some bare-bones contraption, and are willing and able to appreciate what our government has become over time as a part of what our country has become.

i dont know where you stand, but if youre proposing like ddave and crusader that the government should be limited to the founders government, i dont think thats what the founders had in mind with congress and all. they'dve attempted to make a more robust document with no persons in charge of expanding it via bills and acts at all, no?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yeah, but the constitution does allow for congress to determine taxation and national infrastructure.

you guys are hackin it up with the constitution. your interpretations have not whethered scrutiny of its more accomplished scholars. i dont claim to be one of those, but defer to the following:

the united states as it stands is a fine nation, the finest example of one there is. the constitution and how it has been impemented is part of the cause of all that.

if we took your confederate stance 150 years ago, this would not be the case, neither with regard to actual freedoms, nor with prosperity in the economic model youre hoping to twist the constitution to support.

Stop talking, seriously. You make yourself look like a bigger idiot than I thought you were before and believe me I thought you were a complete idiot at the post before this one.

You have American history 100% WRONG! Totally inaccurate! A Librul understand of the founding principles, which is to say completely wrong.

look, dummy, you're the one whose looking past the fact that the constitution charters a government which has for nearly 250 years worked within its confines to affect the state we are now. the constitution enumerates the right of the congress to create laws, levy and apportion tax. it states reasons why: for general welfare, etc. and left those to be the framework for elected persons in their time to determine.

if you want to have a cussing match, start another thread and ill oblige. im not saying that wont be fun. if youve got something to say, say it. dont hide behind your librul-labeling, contribute something instead.

You're lying to my face and I won't stand for it.

There are only a few choices:

A. You're either totally ignorant of the intent of the Founders to establish a limited Federal government with enumerates powers with everything else left to the state; or

B. You understand the Framers intent and are lying about it.

I go with B, but A works too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See Libruls are rewriting American history as we speak. The Constitution had a procedure for adapting it to the times; called an "Amendment" Can you say Amendment? Want to give slaves the vote over the objection of Democrats, use an Amendment! Want women to vote? Dat's right! An Amendment!

However, since the 60's that power has been upended and usurped by a Librul/Statist/Marxist SCOTUS.

 

[Vast LWC]

finish the statement and stop leaving off "of the United States".. those few words at the end of the sentence make it all too clear.. except to the entitlement junkies and to those who want to be charitable without giving of their own resources

individual welfare is indeed much different that the welfare of the union as an entity

I'm sorry, so now you're claiming that the United States is an entity separate from the people of the United States?

Like the writers of the Constitution were literally trying to look out for the ground we walk on, rather than the people who make up the population???

The writers knew how to use the word people or persons.... and they specifically did not...

Yes.. the country as a whole is different than the individual parts making up that country and different than the specific individuals who were guaranteed their freedoms as part of the constitution

You do know how insane this sounds right?

A nation is made up of people. The welfare of the nation is the wefare of it's people.

Your argument is semantic and illogical.

And this sentence:

Those freedoms that the system you and your ilk support that is in direct conflict with those freedoms

Doesn't even make sense.

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try....

It is a lame argument to state that those who supported smaller government, lesser government intervention, lesser authority for the government to seize property, and supported private property rights were 'liberal'.. they were revolutionary and advancing the concepts of a free society...

For you to think that conservatism means support of an oppressive rule, is simply nothing more than your little made up fantasy to try and demonize conservatives

You are more of a buffoon than we thought

You are attempting to apply 21st century political philosophies to the 18th century. Founding fathers were decidedly Liberal for the 18th century. In the 18th century there was no UNITED STATES, there was only a confederation of states that were united. Due to the dispersion of States, lack of a communications or transportation system there was no way to execute a UNITED STATES with a strong federal government. By default, we needed a State-centric government. Each state also had strong loyalties to the states themselves.
This does not make them conservative. What makes the founding fathers the LIBERALs of THEIR DAY (not 2009) was the pushing of the rights of the individual over the rights of the state and the pushing of equal rights of all citizens (except for women, blacks and indians )

18th century conservatives were Torries and were loyal to the crown

Ah the liberals of their day, But by todays standards (we do live in today I believe) they are quite Conservative. Therefore the USA was founded by right wing conservatives.

And I do congratulate the Conservatives for adopting the liberal ideals of all men being created equal and one man one vote. They also adopted the liberal ideals of voting rights for women, civil rights, workplace safety , Social security and Medicare.

We will get those Conservatives into the 21st century yet

 

[Vast LWC]

Here is your problem Dave. The Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide how the Constitution should be interpreted. They have yet to uphold any cases that support your interpretation of "General Welfare" Until they do....your interpretation is wrong

Exactly, well said.

 

[Vast LWC]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

Congress is made up of representatives from the States. Therefore if congress makes a law to provide for the general welfare, it is the States making the law, through their duly elected representatives.

That is in fact the nature of a representative republic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

Congress is made up of representatives from the States. Therefore if congress makes a law to provide for the general welfare, it is the States making the law, through their duly elected representatives.

That is in fact the nature of a representative republic.

And that's how the States ratified the Constitution

 

[Vast LWC]

You're a moron and a liar. If what you say is true, and it's not, what the point of having "enumerated powers" and the 10th Amendment, liar?

"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."

yeah, but the constitution does allow for congress to determine taxation and national infrastructure.

you guys are hackin it up with the constitution. your interpretations have not whethered scrutiny of its more accomplished scholars. i dont claim to be one of those, but defer to the following:

the united states as it stands is a fine nation, the finest example of one there is. the constitution and how it has been impemented is part of the cause of all that.

if we took your confederate stance 150 years ago, this would not be the case, neither with regard to actual freedoms, nor with prosperity in the economic model youre hoping to twist the constitution to support.

Stop talking, seriously. You make yourself look like a bigger idiot than I thought you were before and believe me I thought you were a complete idiot at the post before this one.

You have American history 100% WRONG! Totally inaccurate! A Librul understand of the founding principles, which is to say completely wrong.

ROFL.

Hey Frank, your last few posts consisted of bold-lettered, nonsensical, declaratory, half-sentences, and now you're warning this guy that HE'S looking like an idiot?

Seriously?

You should really take an example from Diamond Dave. At least he considers what he is going to say beforehand, and then states his case in a coherent argument.

I may not agree with him, but he's got good debating style, which is certainly more than I can say for you.

 

[Vast LWC]

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

Congress is made up of representatives from the States. Therefore if congress makes a law to provide for the general welfare, it is the States making the law, through their duly elected representatives.

That is in fact the nature of a representative republic.

And that's how the States ratified the Constitution

And the words "Provide for the General Welfare" were included in that ratified document.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm sorry, so now you're claiming that the United States is an entity separate from the people of the United States?

Like the writers of the Constitution were literally trying to look out for the ground we walk on, rather than the people who make up the population???

The writers knew how to use the word people or persons.... and they specifically did not...

Yes.. the country as a whole is different than the individual parts making up that country and different than the specific individuals who were guaranteed their freedoms as part of the constitution

You do know how insane this sounds right?

A nation is made up of people. The welfare of the nation is the wefare of it's people.

Your argument is semantic and illogical.

And this sentence:

Those freedoms that the system you and your ilk support that is in direct conflict with those freedoms

Doesn't even make sense.

No... Just as "The Army" can have an operation in Iraq.. Not every person in that Army is in Iraq... you see, you can have an action for, with, or on the behalf of a greater entity without having it for every specific individual in said entity... I.E. The welfare of a company does not equal the welfare of the individuals working in that company. The company can be having a record year, and you could be going down the tubes. And the company does not owe you success just because it has success, or just because other individuals within the company have success.


Again.. I will ask.. are you owed things, at the expense of someone else's earnings or efforts, merely because you exist? It is a simple yes or no answer.
Are you allowed, by force, to take from another or intrude on their personal freedoms for your personal gain? Are you allowed to have someone else do that action for you?



Again.. the general welfare of the united states is a much different statement (with a much different meaning) than the general welfare of each individual within the united states

Any basic english teacher can explain to you the difference.

 

[Vast LWC]

See Libruls are rewriting American history as we speak. The Constitution had a procedure for adapting it to the times; called an "Amendment" Can you say Amendment? Want to give slaves the vote over the objection of Democrats, use an Amendment! Want women to vote? Dat's right! An Amendment!

However, since the 60's that power has been upended and usurped by a Librul/Statist/Marxist SCOTUS.

And if you want to change the General Welfare clause, get an amendment.

Maybe you can change it to something like "Provide for some of the General Welfare" and then describe the cases it applies to.

Sans that amendment, the General Welfare clause means what it says.

 

[DiamondDave]

Congress is made up of representatives from the States. Therefore if congress makes a law to provide for the general welfare, it is the States making the law, through their duly elected representatives.

That is in fact the nature of a representative republic.

And that's how the States ratified the Constitution

And the words "Provide for the General Welfare" were included in that ratified document.

Finish the motherfucking sentence you absolute moron....

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.....

Those very same state entities that ratified the creation of the federal government....

Now see if you can understand the premise behind 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.

See.. there is where the word people was carefully put in for meaning... and you do notice it is not there under GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES... you see.. differences in the document referring to the government, the states, and THE PEOPLE....

God you and your entitlement junkie ilk are fucking dense

 

[Vast LWC]

No... Just as "The Army" can have an operation in Iraq.. Not every person in that Army is in Iraq... you see, you can have an action for, with, or on the behalf of a greater entity without having it for every specific individual in said entity... I.E. The welfare of a company does not equal the welfare of the individuals working in that company. The company can be having a record year, and you could be going down the tubes. And the company does not owe you success just because it has success, or just because other individuals within the company have success.

Ahh, but this is where the word "General" comes into play.

When you say "general" as in the "general population", you are referring to the population as a whole.

Thus "The General Welfare of the United States" means, specifically, the welfare ofthe United States, as a whole.

Again.. I will ask.. are you owed things, at the expense of someone else's earnings or efforts, merely because you exist? It is a simple yes or no answer.
Are you allowed, by force, to take from another or intrude on their personal freedoms for your personal gain? Are you allowed to have someone else do that action for you?

Military drafts, Quarantines, the abolition of slavery, and eminent domain are all legal examples of Government doing just what you are talking about for the benefit of the general population.

While I, personally, am not allowed to intrude on another's personal freedoms, the LAW gives government that ability in order to benefit society as a whole.

For instance, if a man is murdering a small child in their home, the government is allowed to step onto that man's property to rescue said child, and then kill or imprison that man to benefit the rest of society.

This is of course a violation of the rights of the prospective murderer, but Government is allowed to do it, with good reason.

Again.. the general welfare of the united states is a much different statement (with a much different meaning) than the general welfare of each individual within the united states

Any basic english teacher can explain to you the difference.

Yes, a basic English teacher can tell you the difference, but they would also tell you that if someone is supposed to look out for the "General Welfare" of a population, then individual members of said population are in fact included in that category.

 

[DiamondDave]

No... Just as "The Army" can have an operation in Iraq.. Not every person in that Army is in Iraq... you see, you can have an action for, with, or on the behalf of a greater entity without having it for every specific individual in said entity... I.E. The welfare of a company does not equal the welfare of the individuals working in that company. The company can be having a record year, and you could be going down the tubes. And the company does not owe you success just because it has success, or just because other individuals within the company have success.

Ahh, but this is where the word "General" comes into play.

When you say "general" as in the "general population", you are referring to the population as a whole.

Thus "The General Welfare of the United States" means, specifically, the welfare ofthe United States, as a whole.

Again.. I will ask.. are you owed things, at the expense of someone else's earnings or efforts, merely because you exist? It is a simple yes or no answer.
Are you allowed, by force, to take from another or intrude on their personal freedoms for your personal gain? Are you allowed to have someone else do that action for you?

Military drafts, Quarantines, the abolition of slavery, and eminent domain are all legal examples of Government doing just what you are talking about for the benefit of the general population.

While I, personally, am not allowed to intrude on another's personal freedoms, the LAW gives government that ability in order to benefit society as a whole.

For instance, if a man is murdering a small child in their home, the government is allowed to step onto that man's property to rescue said child, and then kill or imprison that man to benefit the rest of society.

This is of course a violation of the rights of the prospective murderer, but Government is allowed to do it, with good reason.

Again.. the general welfare of the united states is a much different statement (with a much different meaning) than the general welfare of each individual within the united states

Any basic english teacher can explain to you the difference.

Yes, a basic English teacher can tell you the difference, but they would also tell you that if someone is supposed to look out for the "General Welfare" of a population, then individual members of said population are in fact included in that category.

No... again.. because YOU want it to mean that, does not make it so

When "the general population" supports Obama, does that mean every person does? No
When "the general population" is rich compared to other countries, does that mean every person is? No

This is exactly why the authors placed the words 'people' 'states' 'government' and other terms in specific places and not others... they were not stupid people... if they did indeed intend or mean welfare of every individual, they would have stated such a thing.. the difference between general welfare and individual welfare is clear to everyone but the entitlement junkies

And again... society as a whole... but not for individuals in said society.... you have to discern the difference between such things... I know it goes against what you have been indoctrinated to believe, but it is necessary to understand to live in reality

If a man is murdering a child, that man is violating the individual rights of that child.. which is what our laws are to protect... but ask yourself also... which jurisdiction that crime belongs under.... then come back to that same premise...

 

[Vast LWC]

Finish the motherfucking sentence you absolute moron....

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.....

Oh, see, now you had to go into Frank territory. And after I went and complimented your coherent argumentative style. tsk tsk.

Once again, the addition of "The Unites States" does not change the meaning of the phrase in the way you so desperately seem to want them to. You can claim that it does all you want, that doesn't make it true.

I'd suggest you bring your complaint before the Supreme Court, after all, that's what they're there for. Perhaps they'll listen to your argument and overturn Social Security, even though they haven't for, what, 70 years now?

Those very same state entities that ratified the creation of the federal government....

Now see if you can understand the premise behind 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.

See.. there is where the word people was carefully put in for meaning... and you do notice it is not there under GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES... you see.. differences in the document referring to the government, the states, and THE PEOPLE....

God you and your entitlement junkie ilk are fucking dense

And I'm 90% positive that I make more and pay more taxes than you do. I'm also a veteran and served my country proudly through Desert Storm.

I'm the one providing the capital, not the one receiving the entitlements.

So you can take your "entitlement junkie" accusations and wiggle them up your ass until they lodge high up in your colon. K?

 

[Vast LWC]

No... again.. because YOU want it to mean that, does not make it so

When "the general population" supports Obama, does that mean every person does? No
When "the general population" is rich compared to other countries, does that mean every person is? No

No, but it does mean that MOST of the general population is or does. Therefore when you are referring to looking out for the welfare of the general population, you are saying you want to protect the welfare of as much of the General Population as possible.

This is exactly why the authors placed the words 'people' 'states' 'government' and other terms in specific places and not others... they were not stupid people... if they did indeed intend or mean welfare of every individual, they would have stated such a thing.. the difference between general welfare and individual welfare is clear to everyone but the entitlement junkies

In your opinion.

Obviously, since Social Security, Medicare, etc, etc, have not been declared unconstitutional by any Supreme Court, most of the consitutional lawyers that have been part of that august body agree with my interpretation.

And again... society as a whole... but not for individuals in said society.... you have to discern the difference between such things... I know it goes against what you have been indoctrinated to believe, but it is necessary to understand to live in reality

When you talk about indoctrination, you may want to look at your own point of view. You seem to have suffered from somem rather strong brain-washing.

If a man is murdering a child, that man is violating the individual rights of that child.. which is what our laws are to protect... but ask yourself also... which jurisdiction that crime belongs under.... then come back to that same premise...

The LAW is protecting the SAFETY and HEALTH of that child. Children, in general, lack individual rights. It is violating the RIGHTS of the murderer.

 

[DiamondDave]

Finish the motherfucking sentence you absolute moron....

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.....

Oh, see, now you had to go into Frank territory. And after I went and complimented your coherent argumentative style. tsk tsk.

Once again, the addition of "The Unites States" does not change the meaning of the phrase in the way you so desperately seem to want them to. You can claim that it does all you want, that doesn't make it true.

I'd suggest you bring your complaint before the Supreme Court, after all, that's what they're there for. Perhaps they'll listen to your argument and overturn Social Security, even though they haven't for, what, 70 years now?

Those very same state entities that ratified the creation of the federal government....

Now see if you can understand the premise behind 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.

See.. there is where the word people was carefully put in for meaning... and you do notice it is not there under GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES... you see.. differences in the document referring to the government, the states, and THE PEOPLE....

God you and your entitlement junkie ilk are fucking dense

And I'm 90% positive that I make more and pay more taxes than you do. I'm also a veteran and served my country proudly through Desert Storm.

I'm the one providing the capital, not the one receiving the entitlements.

So you can take your "entitlement junkie" accusations and wiggle them up your ass until they lodge high up in your colon. K?

Ahh.. the whole "I make more than you" route... any other old chestnuts you wish to polish off?? I don't brag of my career or title, nor do I try and tweak an argument with insinuations to how much I make....

And the words "united states" in the sentence are not 'an addition'.. they are part of the original wording and have specific meaning with them in the sentence.... just as a sentence that says general purpose company vehicle does not mean that every person in the company gets personal use or benefit from that vehicle

And just because the SCOTUS has been drawn in to the very same power grab as the executive and the legislative branches does not change what was meant in the creation of the federal government.... and just because they have gone along with changes without going through the amendment process, does not make it right

 

[rightwinger]

And just because the SCOTUS has been drawn in to the very same power grab as the executive and the legislative branches does not change what was meant in the creation of the federal government.... and just because they have gone along with changes without going through the amendment process, does not make it right
__________________

May not make it right by you...but it does make it the law of the land.

SCOTUS was stacked by Bush and is now Conservative. They still haven't backed your views

 

[DiamondDave]

No... again.. because YOU want it to mean that, does not make it so

When "the general population" supports Obama, does that mean every person does? No
When "the general population" is rich compared to other countries, does that mean every person is? No

No, but it does mean that MOST of the general population is or does. Therefore when you are referring to looking out for the welfare of the general population, you are saying you want to protect the welfare of as much of the General Population as possible.

This is exactly why the authors placed the words 'people' 'states' 'government' and other terms in specific places and not others... they were not stupid people... if they did indeed intend or mean welfare of every individual, they would have stated such a thing.. the difference between general welfare and individual welfare is clear to everyone but the entitlement junkies

In your opinion.

Obviously, since Social Security, Medicare, etc, etc, have not been declared unconstitutional by any Supreme Court, most of the consitutional lawyers that have been part of that august body agree with my interpretation.

And again... society as a whole... but not for individuals in said society.... you have to discern the difference between such things... I know it goes against what you have been indoctrinated to believe, but it is necessary to understand to live in reality

When you talk about indoctrination, you may want to look at your own point of view. You seem to have suffered from somem rather strong brain-washing.

If a man is murdering a child, that man is violating the individual rights of that child.. which is what our laws are to protect... but ask yourself also... which jurisdiction that crime belongs under.... then come back to that same premise...

The LAW is protecting the SAFETY and HEALTH of that child. Children, in general, lack individual rights. It is violating the RIGHTS of the murderer.

Again.. you cannot grasp that referring to a greater entity does not mean that it is inherently all inclusive of every individual part of that entity..

Actually.. it is you that seems brain washed by the loopy left... by some socialist ideal that does not mesh with human nature.... that requires crushing power to ensure distribution to non-contributors at the expense of the individual freedoms of the contributors

The children have the same basic rights as other citizens.. particularly the right to life... it i s the individual rights of the child or victim that are being protected, from the violation of those rights by the criminal... it is not any rights of the murderer/criminal being violated.... and again.. is it federal jurisdiction because an individual's rights are being violated with a crime?? Unless it is federal property or DISTINCT federal jurisdiction, that jurisdiction to protect the individual falls with the state and local or the individual themselves... hmmm.. where else is that similarly stated???... 'But but but they are a citizen of the whole country we consider the United States!!!' Well, you see, even so, there is a difference between the country as a whole and the individual within the country and what the federal government is supposed to do and what is to be left to the states and 'the people'...

Again I will ask... a simple yes or no question... Are you owed something at the expense of someone else, for your personal need or personal well being, just because you exist?