Questions for Conservatives

[midcan5]

M14, Once we had slavery, separate but equal was Ok, once women could not vote, once we had a nation where booze was unlawful, once....no need to go on. All these items were argued under that same constitution, and in there were found reasons that justified what today is considered wrong. So obviously we do change, we do mature as a society, at least some do. Change comes in spite of the conservative wish to remain in a warm cave.

 

[maineman]

from your signature line:

However it sounds, "pro-abortion" is as accurate and precise as "pro-gun".
The fact that you dont like the way "pro-abortion" sounds indicates something about the position you hold, not the accuracy of the term used to describe it.
-M14 Shooter

I seem to recall that you wrote that to ME, of all people.

It really isn't true, you know.

I can be totally supportive of your right to OWN a gun, but still be vehemently opposed to, say, the deer hunting or duck hunting that you do with those guns. I am pro-gun, not pro-hunting.

Similarly, I can be reluctantly supportive of a woman's rights to make choices surrounding her own reproductive and bodily functions, but still be vehemently opposed to abortion. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, Once we had slavery

Amendment 13

separate but equal was Ok

Amendment 14

once women could not vote,

Amendment 19

once we had a nation where booze was unlawful, once

Amendment 18 and 20

....no need to go on

Sure there is -- your argument, above, illustrates that you need to cite the constitutional amendment(s) that provides congress the power to:
-provide health care for the people
-provide for the retirement of the people

So obviously we do change

By amending the constitution.

So, again: Show me the power.

And if you can't:
-None of those things have any constitutional basis.
-Those things take up the large majority of our federal spending.
Thus, cut them first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

from your signature line:
However it sounds, "pro-abortion" is as accurate and precise as "pro-gun".
The fact that you dont like the way "pro-abortion" sounds indicates something about the position you hold, not the accuracy of the term used to describe it.
-M14 Shooter

I know. I put it there. It rocks -- dont you think?

I seem to recall that you wrote that to ME, of all people.

Coud be.

It really isn't true, you know.

Sure it is. Its absolutely true

You can be totally supportive of the right to have a gun... you are, yours words, pro-gun
Similarly, you can be reluctantly supportive of the right to have an abortion... you are, by the same standard, pro abortion.

No difference.

 

[maineman]

I know. I put it there. It rocks -- dont you think?


Coud be.


Sure it is. Its absolutely true

You can be totally supportive of the right to have a gun... you are, yours words, pro-gun
Similarly, you can be reluctantly supportive of the right to have an abortion... you are, by the same standard, pro abortion.

No difference.

big difference. I can support your right to have a gun, but not what you chose to do with it. I can support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, but not the decision to have an abortion.

don't be a prick.

 

[maineman]

where does the constitution give the federal government the right to explore space? It seems to me, M14, that you should need to show where the constitution prohibits national health care or social security, not the other way around.

 

[M14 Shooter]

big difference.

Only when you change the argument from what it is to what you want it to be in order for the conclusion to not be something you don't like.

The argument:
(If) I support your right to X, (then) I am pro-X

Thus, as applied
I support your right to have a gun. I am pro gun
I support your right to have an abortion. I am pro-abortion.

don't be a prick.

The fact that you dont like the way "pro-abortion" sounds indicates something about the position you hold, not the accuracy of the term used to describe it.

 

[midcan5]

M14, think Social Security insurance - another change for the better, or regulations to save our national treasures, or food standards, or the center for disease control, or public education. More good stuff, stuff that helped you live a healthier, productive life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

where does the constitution give the federal government the right to explore space?

The government doesnt have the -right- to explore space, or the -right- to do anything else.

However, the POWER to explore space stems from the powers to provide for the common defense and to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

It seems to me, M14, that you should need to show where the constitution prohibits national health care or social security, not the other way around.

That's because you don't understand that the federal govermnet has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution, not any power not prohibited to it by the Constitution. See, among other things, Amendment X.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, think Social Security insurance - another change for the better, or regulations to save our national treasures, or food standards, or the center for disease control, or public education. More good stuff, stuff that helped you live a healthier, productive life.

Again: Show me the power provided to the federal government by the Constitution to do any of those things.

And if you can't:
-None of those things have any constitutional basis.
-Those things take up the large majority of our federal spending.
Thus, cut them first.

 

[maineman]

However, the POWER to explore space stems from the powers to provide for the common defense and to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

can you show me that line in the constitution about "promoting the progress of science and useful arts"?

 

[maineman]

The government doesnt have the -right- to explore space, or the -right- to do anything else.

However, the POWER to explore space stems from the powers to provide for the common defense and to promote the progress of science and useful arts.


That's because you don't understand that the federal govermnet has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution, not any power not prohibited to it by the Constitution. See, among other things, Amendment X.

Only when you change the argument from what it is to what you want it to be in order for the conclusion to not be something you don't like.

The argument:
(If) I support your right to X, (then) I am pro-X

Thus, as applied
I support your right to have a gun. I am pro gun
I support your right to have an abortion. I am pro-abortion.


The fact that you dont like the way "pro-abortion" sounds indicates something about the position you hold, not the accuracy of the term used to describe it.

I do not support a woman's choice of abortion. I do not support a gun owner's choice of hunting defenseless animals. I am pro-choice and pro-gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

can you show me that line in the constitution about "promoting the progress of science and useful arts"?

You arent familiar with the US Constitution?

Article I sec 8:8

This is the same power of congress that allows for the National Endowment for the Arts and any number of other such programs. Including NASA, et al.

 

[maineman]

You arent familiar with the US Constitution?

Article I sec 8:8

This is the same power of congress that allows for the National Endowment for the Arts and any number of other such programs. Including NASA, et al.

no. article I sec 8:8 only has to do with patents and copyrights

 

[M14 Shooter]

I do not support a woman's choice of abortion. I do not support a gun owner's choice of hunting defenseless animals. I am pro-choice and pro-gun.

There you go again, changing the argument from what it is to what you want it to be in order for the conclusion to not be something you don't like

You support the right to have a gun. You are pro gun
You support the right to have an abortion. You are pro-abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

no. article I sec 8:8 only has to do with patents

Think so?

This means that the NEA, CPB, and any number of other federal programs that 'promotes the useful arts and sciences' are unconstitutional.
You agree with that?

And, as noted before, part of the power to create NASA and the space program falls under the powers that provide for the common defense.

 

[maineman]

Think so?

This means that the NEA, CPB, and any number of other federal programs that 'promotes the useful arts and sciences' are unconstitutional.
You agree with that?

And, as noted before, part of the power to create NASA and the space program falls under the powers that provide for the common defense.

I do not think that any of those organizations are unconstitutional. I don't think Social security or medicare are either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think Social security or medicare are either.

Then show me where the Constitution grants Congress the power to:
-provide health care for the people
-provide for the retirement of the people

And if you can't:
-None of those things have any constitutional basis.
-Those things take up the large majority of our federal spending.
Thus, cut them first.

 

[maineman]

Then show me where the Constitution grants Congress the power to:
-provide health care for the people
-provide for the retirement of the people

And if you can't:
-None of those things have any constitutional basis.
-Those things take up the large majority of our federal spending.
Thus, cut them first.

show me where the constitution grants congress the power to go to the moon - and suggesting that going to the moon somehow has to do with common defense is an hilarious stretch. Or set up the national endowment for the arts.... or the CPB.

show me where supreme courts - who are routinely populated with men and women who have forgotten more constitutional law than you will ever know, have found social security to be unconstitutional....

 

[M14 Shooter]

show me where the constitution grants congress the power to go to the moon ....

I accept your concession that you cannot show where the Constitution provides Congress the power to provide health care for the people and/or to provide for the retirement of the people, and therefore have no constitutional basis.

Thank you.