Social Conservatives and Corporatists.

[Quantum Windbag]

Read the post.

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

Only if you neglect to read the rest of the sentence.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That might actually be your problem here, you read so far and then stop because you got to the part you like. The part of the sentence you glossed over explains why, when Congress passed an income tax, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

We go on.

Find that limits.

Most of them have to do with what the Federal Government can do to the individual. Not what power they have over the states.

And conservatives? Heck..that's what they have a problem with.

They WANT the federal government to be able to torture people, to hold people without a way to defend themselves, and to give corporations the right to grab land if there is a profit in it.

Would you like a list of things they cannot do to the states? Did you notice that the very sentence you truncated contained a limit on Congressional power over the states?

FYI, most of the of the powers of Congress are specifically limited on what they can do re. the states. The Amendments are the first time that individuals are mentioned regarding federal power.

Thank you for following my advice though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, as I've stated and you've ignored, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong on this. Appeals to authority don't resolve whether said authority is right.

Then what are you replacing the Supreme Court with? Who makes the final determination as to the meaning of the Founding Document, if the Framers themselves were unable to do so?

Both states and the federal government are guilty of expanding government power beyond the limits set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has largely ignored both. But in reality, it's voters who have failed to uphold the values of limited government. In the end, quibbling over the intent and meaning of the original text of the constitution is meaningless if voters don't care. If most people want an intrusive, caretaker government, that's what we'll get. It's up the rest of us to figure out how to fight back.

And if the majority of the people elect to violate the rights of the minority, what is the injured party’s means of redress? Or are they simply forced to have their Constitutional rights violated?

Now you're simply fantasizing. Libertarians are far more adamant defenders of our liberties than any other political party.

Examples? How can liberty be retained if the rule of law is abandoned? Or do you, unlike the Framers, believe men are capable of ruling justly?

The "Rule of law" gave us the PATRIOT ACT and the Japanese internment camps.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And, as I recently pointed out to you, SCOTUS recently ruled unanimously that the powers of the federal government are not only not unlimited, individuals can actually challenge laws under the 10th Amendment. Please feel free to continue ignoring reality, current case law, and anything else that contradicts you if it interferes with your pretense you actually know what you are talking about.

That there are limitations on Congress’ powers was never at issue – I’m addressing the misconception that libertarians and the extreme right have with regard to discounting all Constitutional case law starting with Marbury – that the states may indeed ignore Federal laws, which is clearly not the case.

Libertarians are not the extreme right.

They do, for the most part, share the same misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment, however.

What universe are you from? SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to force states to honor civil rights. You can twist that to mean that states violated those tights if you want, but the fact is that the federal government did it first.

You forgot to cite the case.

While you’re looking for the ruling, for your edification:

The Incorporation Doctrine

By its express terms, the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government. However, the 1st Amendment and most of the remaining amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to state governments today because of the judicially created “Incorporation Doctrine”.

Beginning in 1925, the justices gradually incorporated the provisions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause by declaring that each of the rights was "fundamental" to the conception of due process of law.

The Supreme Court explained the incorporation doctrine in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright. 372 U.S. 335 (1963). The Gideon Court described the 14th Amendment as embracing those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." See Gideon 372 U.S. at 340.

Justice Black, writing for the Gideon Court, outlined the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment:

"This Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature" and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment's command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth's ban on cruel and unusual punishment." See Gideon 372 U.S. at 341-42.

The Incorporation Doctrine

Gideon is one of many examples of states violating their citizens’ rights, and the Supreme Court incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment to invalidate those un-Constitutional laws.

The Supreme Court recently used Incorporation Doctrine to apply the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in McDonald, where the City of Chicago was found in violation of the right to self defense.

Yet you think it is perfectly consistent to do the opposite.

Don’t incorrectly infer that I agree or disagree with a given ruling.

Thank you for proving my point.

Which means you didn’t understand the statement.

Let’s try breaking it down:

It’s also not a matter of ‘thinking for yourself,’ rather, it’s an understanding of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law…

This means we are all subject to the rule of law, not men – men don’t decide what rights will be allowed or disallowed.

…of understanding the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document authorized by the rule of law…

This means that the Supreme Court, authorized by the rule of law, determines what the Constitution means – some may disagree with this interpretation, but understand it is now the law of the land and must be followed accordingly. To simply say ‘the Supreme Court is “wrong,”’ without providing case law as to why, does not justify ignoring a given ruling.

...and that the original intent of the Framers was diverse and mutable at the time, never realizing consensus.

Since the Framers never realized a consensus as to the meaning of the role of the Federal government, adhering to Foundation Era only documents to the exclusion of Supreme Court case law does not justify a given position on the issue.

 

[dblack]

Then what are you replacing the Supreme Court with? Who makes the final determination as to the meaning of the Founding Document, if the Framers themselves were unable to do so?

What are you even talking about?? I'm not disputing the role of the Supreme Court in making these determinations. I'm saying they 'determined' wrong - they fucked up.

And if the majority of the people elect to violate the rights of the minority, what is the injured party’s means of redress? Or are they simply forced to have their Constitutional rights violated?

It's supposed to be the Supreme Court. All too often they have failed in that charge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That there are limitations on Congress’ powers was never at issue – I’m addressing the misconception that libertarians and the extreme right have with regard to discounting all Constitutional case law starting with Marbury – that the states may indeed ignore Federal laws, which is clearly not the case.

Yet you have no problem with liberals who disregard case law that dates back to Dred Scott v Sanford or Plessy v Fergusen. That makes you, at best, inconsistent. I will leave it to others to determine what the worst case is.

They do, for the most part, share the same misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment, however.

Why are they wrong and you right? I can cite numerous authorities, including all the founders who were federalists, and make cogent arguments against your position. All you can do is point and say "They said so." Believe it or not, that is not a debating tactic, even if it works in arguments.

You forgot to cite the case.

You act like an authority on civil rights and the Supreme Court and do not even know about Plessy?

Let me google that for you

While you’re looking for the ruling, for your edification:



Gideon is one of many examples of states violating their citizens’ rights, and the Supreme Court incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment to invalidate those un-Constitutional laws.

The Supreme Court recently used Incorporation Doctrine to apply the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in McDonald, where the City of Chicago was found in violation of the right to self defense.

SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply to the states before they ruled it did. Pointing to them fixing that and blaming the states is stupid.

Don’t incorrectly infer that I agree or disagree with a given ruling.

I am not inferring anything about what you agree with, I am pointing out your hypocrisy. If you have evidence where you actually go against the government in anything feel free to provide me with evidence.

Which means you didn’t understand the statement.

Want to bet?

Let’s try breaking it down:

It’s also not a matter of ‘thinking for yourself,’ rather, it’s an understanding of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law…

This means we are all subject to the rule of law, not men – men don’t decide what rights will be allowed or disallowed.

Yet that is exactly what happens. The courts have repeatedly ruled that there are exceptions to the Constitution where we really do not have rights, and last time I looked all the judges were human. That means that men actually do exactly what you are trying to say they do not.

…of understanding the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document authorized by the rule of law…

This means that the Supreme Court, authorized by the rule of law, determines what the Constitution means – some may disagree with this interpretation, but understand it is now the law of the land and must be followed accordingly. To simply say ‘the Supreme Court is “wrong,”’ without providing case law as to why, does not justify ignoring a given ruling.

What about understand that the Constition is not meant to solely be interpreted by SCOTUS. The founders set up a system of checks and balances so that no one of the three branches of government would have the final say on anything. Yet you, because you have been told all your life that SCOTUS has the final say, do not think about how that has actually changed our form of government.

...and that the original intent of the Framers was diverse and mutable at the time, never realizing consensus.

Since the Framers never realized a consensus as to the meaning of the role of the Federal government, adhering to Foundation Era only documents to the exclusion of Supreme Court case law does not justify a given position on the issue.

Nor does it justify adhering to case law over common sense or your ability to think.

Thank you for proving my point, again.

 

[Sallow]

Only if you neglect to read the rest of the sentence.

That might actually be your problem here, you read so far and then stop because you got to the part you like. The part of the sentence you glossed over explains why, when Congress passed an income tax, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

We go on.

Find that limits.

Most of them have to do with what the Federal Government can do to the individual. Not what power they have over the states.

And conservatives? Heck..that's what they have a problem with.

They WANT the federal government to be able to torture people, to hold people without a way to defend themselves, and to give corporations the right to grab land if there is a profit in it.

Would you like a list of things they cannot do to the states? Did you notice that the very sentence you truncated contained a limit on Congressional power over the states?

FYI, most of the of the powers of Congress are specifically limited on what they can do re. the states. The Amendments are the first time that individuals are mentioned regarding federal power.

Thank you for following my advice though.

What??

What document are YOU reading.

Here's the full clauses of the constitution regarding Congress.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Those are very broad and extensive powers.

This are the prohibitions on the States.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This is one of the most extensive powers of the President.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

These are the responsibilities of the States.

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

And here's something you guys leave out of all your arguments.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Seriously.

Read it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What??

What document are YOU reading.

Here's the full clauses of the constitution regarding Congress.

Those are very broad and extensive powers.

If they are broad and extensive why are they listed at all?

Let's take a couple of those "broad and extensive" powers and look at them a little closer.

Borrow money on the credit of the United States. Doesn't sound very broad to me. It seems they cannot just borrow money, or declare that it exists, or even just ignore the problem altogether.

To establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This power is so broad and expansive that it specifically removes them from having power over the Supreme court.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer than two years. Sounds like a limit to me.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Why can't they make laws about things not necessary for the listed powers or any other powers actually vested by the Constitution in the Government? The only way to read that sentence and remain faithful to the English language is to recognize that government powers are limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

That actually explains why language was added to to the 14th and 18th Amendments to give Congress the power to enforce them. If Congress already had broad power they would not need the extra language to provide them power to do what they already had power to do.

Yet, under modern reading, that somehow got twisted, and the people that point out the obvious are labeled as nutcases.

This are the prohibitions on the States.

And? Have I, or anyone else, ever tried to argue that states have those powers? Why mention them at all?

This is one of the most extensive powers of the President.

Again you seem to have problem with comprehension. That is a list of powers, not a single power. I will guess, however, that you are thinking about the power he has to order the military around. If you think about it, that actually serves as a limit to the authority of Congress and the military itself.

I will also point out that Congress actually has the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal if they ever want to intervene militarily and the president prefers to sit on his hands.

Letter of marque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the responsibilities of the States.

All of those simply assert the fact that we are a single country.

And here's something you guys leave out of all your arguments.

Seriously.

Read it.

I have.

I never said that any laws passed following to the Constitution are not the law of the land, my problem is with those not passed that way.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances to insure that no single branch has the entire power of the government at its disposal, yet you want to change that simply because it makes it easier for the guys you like to do what needs to be done, then you rail against it when the people you disagree with do the same thing. I rail against it no matter who has the power, because it is always wrong, even if I like the intent.

Again I want to thank you for following my advice. Not sure why you insist on not thinking for yourself, but I do appreciate your efforts to show me how much you appreciate my advice to not let reality get in your way when doing so. I know that makes it easier for you to reconcile the conflicts.

 

[Sallow]

The two main branches of the current Republican Party seem to be made up of 2 camps. The Social Conservatives and the Corporatists.

The Agenda of the Social Conservatives seems to be:
-Have the state force a woman to bring each and every fetus to term regardless of how it was conceived, the risk to the mother's life, or whether there exists financial support to raise the child.
-Include the Christian Church in governance.
-Eliminate or reduce the influence of cultures outside the Anglo-Saxon realm in this country.
-Immediately deport any non-citizen.
-Close off immigration, entirely.
-Impose a singular definition of marriage..and that being a man and women..preferably of the same race.
-Remove any laws regarding the ownership of firearms.
-Hold a foreign policy that essentially recognizes that every other nation should be subservient to the United States. The US should be feared..not respected.
-That the rich are wealthy because divinity made it so. They should rule the nation as well.
-The government in general should only be responsible for keeping and maintaining the military..as well as upholding Christian Anglo Saxon culture.
-That the United States is a Conferacy of States. States hold supremacy over the Federal government.
-Eliminate or curtail the right to vote.
-Eliminate all public education.
-Eliminate Science.
-Eliminate all art that does not glorify Christianity.
-Make each and every crime subject to life imprisonment or execution.
-Promote legislation that squelches any speech that does not fit the agenda of Social Conservativism.
-Taxes are evil and ungodly.

The Agenda of Corporatists seem to be:
-The government exists to protect the interests of corporate entities.
-Revenue should be derived in large part through government contracts, loans, tax breaks and give backs.
-Regulation of any sort is unprofitable and should never be imposed.
-Risk is to be managed by the tax payer. Profit is private.-Voting is counter productive to the Plutocracy..and should be curtailed.
-Unions should be completely eliminated. No laws regarding employment, employee safety, and wages should be implemented.
-The Federal Bank serves no useful purpose. It should be the Financial and banking industry that controls the value of currency and interest rates.
-Profit should be the sole domain of executives, with some going to shareholders..who can be screwed at any time.
-It should be the realm of corporations to determine whether or not their products are safe. Buyer beware.
-The government exists essentially as an extention of the Corporatists.
-The military-industrial complex is a wonderful source of revenue and wars should be encouraged.

And when you combine the to..or mix and match..it's easy to understand the Conservatives and today's Republican party.

I just started a poll to highlight these points.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...more-public-money-for-the-private-sector.html

 

[Sallow]

What??

What document are YOU reading.

Here's the full clauses of the constitution regarding Congress.

Those are very broad and extensive powers.

If they are broad and extensive why are they listed at all?

Let's take a couple of those "broad and extensive" powers and look at them a little closer.

Borrow money on the credit of the United States. Doesn't sound very broad to me. It seems they cannot just borrow money, or declare that it exists, or even just ignore the problem altogether.

To establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This power is so broad and expansive that it specifically removes them from having power over the Supreme court.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer than two years. Sounds like a limit to me.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Why can't they make laws about things not necessary for the listed powers or any other powers actually vested by the Constitution in the Government? The only way to read that sentence and remain faithful to the English language is to recognize that government powers are limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

That actually explains why language was added to to the 14th and 18th Amendments to give Congress the power to enforce them. If Congress already had broad power they would not need the extra language to provide them power to do what they already had power to do.

Yet, under modern reading, that somehow got twisted, and the people that point out the obvious are labeled as nutcases.

This are the prohibitions on the States.

And? Have I, or anyone else, ever tried to argue that states have those powers? Why mention them at all?



Again you seem to have problem with comprehension. That is a list of powers, not a single power. I will guess, however, that you are thinking about the power he has to order the military around. If you think about it, that actually serves as a limit to the authority of Congress and the military itself.

I will also point out that Congress actually has the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal if they ever want to intervene militarily and the president prefers to sit on his hands.

Letter of marque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the responsibilities of the States.

All of those simply assert the fact that we are a single country.

And here's something you guys leave out of all your arguments.

Seriously.

Read it.

I have.

I never said that any laws passed following to the Constitution are not the law of the land, my problem is with those not passed that way.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances to insure that no single branch has the entire power of the government at its disposal, yet you want to change that simply because it makes it easier for the guys you like to do what needs to be done, then you rail against it when the people you disagree with do the same thing. I rail against it no matter who has the power, because it is always wrong, even if I like the intent.

Again I want to thank you for following my advice. Not sure why you insist on not thinking for yourself, but I do appreciate your efforts to show me how much you appreciate my advice to not let reality get in your way when doing so. I know that makes it easier for you to reconcile the conflicts.

Borrowing money on the credit of the United State is not an extensive power?

On what planet?

And this is all over the place. All of a sudden you veered into "checks and balances", another issue entirely. And your point about the military is funny. We now have a professional standing army under federal control..never original intent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What??

What document are YOU reading.

Here's the full clauses of the constitution regarding Congress.

Those are very broad and extensive powers.

If they are broad and extensive why are they listed at all?

Let's take a couple of those "broad and extensive" powers and look at them a little closer.

Borrow money on the credit of the United States. Doesn't sound very broad to me. It seems they cannot just borrow money, or declare that it exists, or even just ignore the problem altogether.

To establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This power is so broad and expansive that it specifically removes them from having power over the Supreme court.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer than two years. Sounds like a limit to me.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Why can't they make laws about things not necessary for the listed powers or any other powers actually vested by the Constitution in the Government? The only way to read that sentence and remain faithful to the English language is to recognize that government powers are limited to what is mentioned in the Constitution.

That actually explains why language was added to to the 14th and 18th Amendments to give Congress the power to enforce them. If Congress already had broad power they would not need the extra language to provide them power to do what they already had power to do.

Yet, under modern reading, that somehow got twisted, and the people that point out the obvious are labeled as nutcases.



And? Have I, or anyone else, ever tried to argue that states have those powers? Why mention them at all?



Again you seem to have problem with comprehension. That is a list of powers, not a single power. I will guess, however, that you are thinking about the power he has to order the military around. If you think about it, that actually serves as a limit to the authority of Congress and the military itself.

I will also point out that Congress actually has the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal if they ever want to intervene militarily and the president prefers to sit on his hands.

Letter of marque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



All of those simply assert the fact that we are a single country.

And here's something you guys leave out of all your arguments.

Seriously.

Read it.

I have.

I never said that any laws passed following to the Constitution are not the law of the land, my problem is with those not passed that way.

The Constitution is all about checks and balances to insure that no single branch has the entire power of the government at its disposal, yet you want to change that simply because it makes it easier for the guys you like to do what needs to be done, then you rail against it when the people you disagree with do the same thing. I rail against it no matter who has the power, because it is always wrong, even if I like the intent.

Again I want to thank you for following my advice. Not sure why you insist on not thinking for yourself, but I do appreciate your efforts to show me how much you appreciate my advice to not let reality get in your way when doing so. I know that makes it easier for you to reconcile the conflicts.

Borrowing money on the credit of the United State is not an extensive power?

On what planet?

And this is all over the place. All of a sudden you veered into "checks and balances", another issue entirely. And your point about the military is funny. We now have a professional standing army under federal control..never original intent.

How is being able to borrow money extensive? Even if it is, the fact that you zeroed in on that instead of trying to defend the claim that all the other powers are broad and extensive is pretty telling.

 

[Sallow]

How is being able to borrow money extensive? Even if it is, the fact that you zeroed in on that instead of trying to defend the claim that all the other powers are broad and extensive is pretty telling.

They are ALL broad and extensive. And the United States is not a household, it's not a private enterprise..it's a country of over 300 billion people with an economy of over 14 trillion dollars a year.

It's amazing the ridiculous lengths conservatives go to in terms of these arguments.

 

[Sallow]

The two main branches of the current Republican Party seem to be made up of 2 camps. The Social Conservatives and the Corporatists.

The Agenda of the Social Conservatives seems to be:
-Have the state force a woman to bring each and every fetus to term regardless of how it was conceived, the risk to the mother's life, or whether there exists financial support to raise the child.
-Include the Christian Church in governance.
-Eliminate or reduce the influence of cultures outside the Anglo-Saxon realm in this country.
-Immediately deport any non-citizen.
-Close off immigration, entirely.
-Impose a singular definition of marriage..and that being a man and women..preferably of the same race.
-Remove any laws regarding the ownership of firearms.
-Hold a foreign policy that essentially recognizes that every other nation should be subservient to the United States. The US should be feared..not respected.
-That the rich are wealthy because divinity made it so. They should rule the nation as well.
-The government in general should only be responsible for keeping and maintaining the military..as well as upholding Christian Anglo Saxon culture.
-That the United States is a Conferacy of States. States hold supremacy over the Federal government.
-Eliminate or curtail the right to vote.
-Eliminate all public education.
-Eliminate Science.
-Eliminate all art that does not glorify Christianity.
-Make each and every crime subject to life imprisonment or execution.
-Promote legislation that squelches any speech that does not fit the agenda of Social Conservativism.
-Taxes are evil and ungodly.

The Agenda of Corporatists seem to be:
-The government exists to protect the interests of corporate entities.
-Revenue should be derived in large part through government contracts, loans, tax breaks and give backs.
-Regulation of any sort is unprofitable and should never be imposed.
-Risk is to be managed by the tax payer. Profit is private.
-Voting is counter productive to the Plutocracy..and should be curtailed.
-Unions should be completely eliminated. No laws regarding employment, employee safety, and wages should be implemented.
-The Federal Bank serves no useful purpose. It should be the Financial and banking industry that controls the value of currency and interest rates.
-Profit should be the sole domain of executives, with some going to shareholders..who can be screwed at any time.
-It should be the realm of corporations to determine whether or not their products are safe. Buyer beware.
-The government exists essentially as an extention of the Corporatists.
-The military-industrial complex is a wonderful source of revenue and wars should be encouraged.

And when you combine the to..or mix and match..it's easy to understand the Conservatives and today's Republican party.

We are seeing those played out in the debt ceiling talks.

 

[Dot Com]

This about sums it up:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is being able to borrow money extensive? Even if it is, the fact that you zeroed in on that instead of trying to defend the claim that all the other powers are broad and extensive is pretty telling.

They are ALL broad and extensive. And the United States is not a household, it's not a private enterprise..it's a country of over 300 billion people with an economy of over 14 trillion dollars a year.

It's amazing the ridiculous lengths conservatives go to in terms of these arguments.

I am trying to figure out how borrowing money is a broad and extensive power, and your defense of that position is because I said so. Then you complain that I am going to strange lengths to argue my position.

Maybe if you could articulate a defense I might be able to make some sort of sense of your claims. As it is you just look stupid.

 

[Sallow]

How is being able to borrow money extensive? Even if it is, the fact that you zeroed in on that instead of trying to defend the claim that all the other powers are broad and extensive is pretty telling.

They are ALL broad and extensive. And the United States is not a household, it's not a private enterprise..it's a country of over 300 billion people with an economy of over 14 trillion dollars a year.

It's amazing the ridiculous lengths conservatives go to in terms of these arguments.

I am trying to figure out how borrowing money is a broad and extensive power, and your defense of that position is because I said so. Then you complain that I am going to strange lengths to argue my position.

Maybe if you could articulate a defense I might be able to make some sort of sense of your claims. As it is you just look stupid.

I look "stupid"?

I triple dog dare you to find any restrictions..as mandated by the Constitution..toward borrowing money. Some number..something.

Go ahead.

Go for it.

You can do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are ALL broad and extensive. And the United States is not a household, it's not a private enterprise..it's a country of over 300 billion people with an economy of over 14 trillion dollars a year.

It's amazing the ridiculous lengths conservatives go to in terms of these arguments.

I am trying to figure out how borrowing money is a broad and extensive power, and your defense of that position is because I said so. Then you complain that I am going to strange lengths to argue my position.

Maybe if you could articulate a defense I might be able to make some sort of sense of your claims. As it is you just look stupid.

I look "stupid"?

I triple dog dare you to find any restrictions..as mandated by the Constitution..toward borrowing money. Some number..something.

Go ahead.

Go for it.

You can do it.

"Full faith and credit" means that they have to pay it back, not that they can borrow unlimited amounts of money.

 

[Sallow]

I am trying to figure out how borrowing money is a broad and extensive power, and your defense of that position is because I said so. Then you complain that I am going to strange lengths to argue my position.

Maybe if you could articulate a defense I might be able to make some sort of sense of your claims. As it is you just look stupid.

I look "stupid"?

I triple dog dare you to find any restrictions..as mandated by the Constitution..toward borrowing money. Some number..something.

Go ahead.

Go for it.

You can do it.

"Full faith and credit" means that they have to pay it back, not that they can borrow unlimited amounts of money.

Either you print it or you borrow it.

Your choice.

 

[Misty]

Lolol. You write some big long blah blah blah post trying to prove your knowledge of republicans and then write "combine the to"?

It's two. A number. And you have no clue what you are talking about.

Republicans want TWO fundamental things; don't tax everything we touch and the for the government to shrink down to a very small part of our lives.

You wanna kill your baby go ahead. You want be gay and married go ahead. In the real world republicans don't give a crap about that, that politics.

 

[bripat9643]

It's truly sad that libtard tics find cartoons like that instructive.

This about sums it up: