Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry. We all know what dems mean when they say shit like " love thy neighbor""don't be such a greedy asshole" and other sentiments. They mean, use other people's money to make themselves feel good. You simply don't use a biblical verse to justify federal spending, when the purpose of the admonishment is to encourage personal charity. Unless, of course, you believe that the biblical verse recommends just such charity.....with your neighbors money.Ah. Well, since the context of that quote was in a discussion of whether the Feds have the authority to send fire/police aid to a state, let me ask:
If Hawaii suffered a large volcanic explosion, and fires were rampant in Honolulu, would you oppose the Federal Gubermint sending federal money, equipment and personnel to help the overwhelmed Honolulu FD? Because I think the LAFD, Portland FD and Seattle FD would have trouble driving their fire trucks to help their fellow state.
A consistent response from you would be "NO, the federal government does not have the authority under the Constitution to send aid to the states for fire and police service".
Right?
So you're saying the Federal Government would have no damn business helping Hawaii out in that scenario because the Constitution doesn't grant the authority? Just a simple question.
What they dont realize is most FD's also have certified paramedics on the truck. And respond to ALL medical calls. So a person having a minor medical problem has a paramedic show up. If he/she can treat it there, guess what? It's free. You dont pay for an ambulance ride. You dont pay for an ER visit. Which means healthcare costs never happen. Good for everyone involved.
Sorry. We all know what dems mean when they say shit like " love thy neighbor""don't be such a greedy asshole" and other sentiments. They mean, use other people's money to make themselves feel good. You simply don't use a biblical verse to justify federal spending, when the purpose of the admonishment is to encourage personal charity. Unless, of course, you believe that the biblical verse recommends just such charity.....with your neighbors money.Ah. Well, since the context of that quote was in a discussion of whether the Feds have the authority to send fire/police aid to a state, let me ask:
If Hawaii suffered a large volcanic explosion, and fires were rampant in Honolulu, would you oppose the Federal Gubermint sending federal money, equipment and personnel to help the overwhelmed Honolulu FD? Because I think the LAFD, Portland FD and Seattle FD would have trouble driving their fire trucks to help their fellow state.
A consistent response from you would be "NO, the federal government does not have the authority under the Constitution to send aid to the states for fire and police service".
Right?
So you're saying the Federal Government would have no damn business helping Hawaii out in that scenario because the Constitution doesn't grant the authority? Just a simple question.
James Madison (Father of the Constitution): Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Nah, keep bringing it on. See, unlike many, I'm truly not afraid of my principles. If it means voting for someone I never thought I would, so be it. A man makes decisions not from peer pressure, but from what he feels is right. No one would walk with their left eye closed just because the pretty view is on the right, would they? Well, some would. The Tea Party was a great thing from 2009 til about a year ago, in my humble opinion. My views are just more represented by Democrats mostly right now. I've got the courage to admit that, and vote that way.
What principles? I don't see you having any.
The old "I used to be a Conservative (uh huh, really, truly) and then I saw the light" was old and boring and unconvincing when David Brock did it, you think it gets MORE convincing and effective with the passing years?
LOL
Name change, Dude; maybe Bucs Starkey or Jake Brock, something where we'll have no idea its your new name
So you think I was a fake right winger for.......the past 4 years on USMB.....just to all of a sudden jump out and say I'm switching in August 2012?
WowThats a doozy.
The Real Message Behind Mitt Romney’s Anti-Police And Firefighters ‘Gaffe’ | Mediaite
All the right wingers of the political world who are in power (mayors, govs, councils) seem to share the same idea: It's open season on cops and firemen. Lump them into the evil "government worker" label, and start slashing away.
This story didn't get reported much at all. Why? Well, maybe because I used to watch mostly FoxNews, and they just didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sure CNN, NBC, etc, didn't either.
And the above article sums it up so well. Romney and the right wing TP need votes from the right wing and independents. Which are mostly middle and upper class, many live in suburbs, and many are white. Which is fine. But the article explains, perfectly, that THOSE voting groups aren't as dependent on cops and firemen as, say, those in inner city ghettos. It says in those places, reductions in cops wont cause "someone to die" as a result. Thus, the voters accept it and dont really care. Again....just government workers, which are BAD.
Which is why I personally think "they" dont get it. Many on the right and in the TP live in the suburbs or in safe rural areas. They see a cop here and there. Probably live in fairly safe areas, with the biggest problems being speeding, DUI, some minor thefts. To them, "more cops" not only makes no sense, but they see TOO MANY cops. (Note: Often the case in cities the cops have helped make safe, the locals feel they are no longer necessary). Same with firemen. No one needs a fireman until their house is on fire.
What they dont realize is most FD's also have certified paramedics on the truck. And respond to ALL medical calls. So a person having a minor medical problem has a paramedic show up. If he/she can treat it there, guess what? It's free. You dont pay for an ambulance ride. You dont pay for an ER visit. Which means healthcare costs never happen. Good for everyone involved.
Unless you're the rich TP'er who sees the fire truck stopped at Subway for lunch and think "what a waste of my tax dollars to have so many fire trucks".
I’ve spent two deployments in combat as a Marine Corps infantryman. My first deployment we had 16 killed and around 263 wounded out of a 600+ man battalion. Our paychecks? Much lower than unionized public workers both in the police, fire department, and the bearcats, especially when you take in to effect benefits in many liberal municipalities. As an E-5 I was making $26,000 per year. The average military retiree makes anywhere between 1500 enlisted-2900 officer after 20 years of service and risking their lives. But it isn’t about the pay. It’s about serving your country and preserving our way of life. You don’t sign up for such a job for benefits, retirement, and an 8 hour work day. No, not in combat arms. We offered a public SERVICE. We aren’t allowed to unionize nor do we feel the need to. You won’t find us threatening to walk off the job, hire goons to protest on our behalf, run political ads on billboards, or quit when the government lowers our pay increases to under-pace inflation. Nevertheless, while liberals see fit to cry about the benefits to unionized police officers and firefighters they certainly also see fit to trash the military budget of which we depend on for our very lives. While liberals say to the public “we can’t spend enough for our unionized rescue workers” we were welding iron on the sides of our Humvee’s and watching democrats threaten to defund the war we were fighting (Though they really didn’t mean it but tell that to the enemy) as the enemy increased attacks to ensure that they did. And yet, we continue to do the mission with what we got and you never hear us complain about it. Not even when we received our absentee ballots 3 days before the 2004 Presidential election. Why? Because we serve and we serve with what we got and we serve what we get paid with regardless of the amount. That alone is the satisfaction we receive from doing our duty. If the government sees fit to lower our pay then fine. If its sees fit to decrease our numbers then fine. If it wants to defund our programs then fine. Why? Because we serve for the satisfaction of serving. And if it means that if we must work with less to ensure that our country survives then so be it. Don’t cry to me about firefighters and police officers.
I respect the police and the firefighters, I also highly respect those servicemen who risked their lives so we can sit home and cry over politics, thank you for what you have done for all of us.
I also don't know why the Democratic party treats soldiers like dirt and not wanting to count their votes, they above all people have EARNED the right to vote and every measure should be made to see each and everyone counted.
I don't see how the Democratic party can treat service men this crappy and then pretend to care about police and firemen.
We also need to pay servicemen, police and firemen the wages Hollywood nut jobs get and give hollywood nutjobs low pay,
Ive spent two deployments in combat as a Marine Corps infantryman. My first deployment we had 16 killed and around 263 wounded out of a 600+ man battalion. Our paychecks? Much lower than unionized public workers both in the police, fire department, and the bearcats, especially when you take in to effect benefits in many liberal municipalities. As an E-5 I was making $26,000 per year. The average military retiree makes anywhere between 1500 enlisted-2900 officer after 20 years of service and risking their lives. But it isnt about the pay. Its about serving your country and preserving our way of life. You dont sign up for such a job for benefits, retirement, and an 8 hour work day. No, not in combat arms. We offered a public SERVICE. We arent allowed to unionize nor do we feel the need to. You wont find us threatening to walk off the job, hire goons to protest on our behalf, run political ads on billboards, or quit when the government lowers our pay increases to under-pace inflation. Nevertheless, while liberals see fit to cry about the benefits to unionized police officers and firefighters they certainly also see fit to trash the military budget of which we depend on for our very lives. While liberals say to the public we cant spend enough for our unionized rescue workers we were welding iron on the sides of our Humvees and watching democrats threaten to defund the war we were fighting (Though they really didnt mean it but tell that to the enemy) as the enemy increased attacks to ensure that they did. And yet, we continue to do the mission with what we got and you never hear us complain about it. Not even when we received our absentee ballots 3 days before the 2004 Presidential election. Why? Because we serve and we serve with what we got and we serve what we get paid with regardless of the amount. That alone is the satisfaction we receive from doing our duty. If the government sees fit to lower our pay then fine. If its sees fit to decrease our numbers then fine. If it wants to defund our programs then fine. Why? Because we serve for the satisfaction of serving. And if it means that if we must work with less to ensure that our country survives then so be it. Dont cry to me about firefighters and police officers.
I respect the police and the firefighters, I also highly respect those servicemen who risked their lives so we can sit home and cry over politics, thank you for what you have done for all of us.
I also don't know why the Democratic party treats soldiers like dirt and not wanting to count their votes, they above all people have EARNED the right to vote and every measure should be made to see each and everyone counted.
I don't see how the Democratic party can treat service men this crappy and then pretend to care about police and firemen.
We also need to pay servicemen, police and firemen the wages Hollywood nut jobs get and give hollywood nutjobs low pay,
Because we don't belong to a union, people don't directly see the results of our service, and we vote republican by a 3 to 1 margin. Therefore, we dont count as much as firefighters and policemen to Democrats.
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/102708tns_nov-poll.pdf
USATODAY.com - Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
.
Sorry. We all know what dems mean when they say shit like " love thy neighbor""don't be such a greedy asshole" and other sentiments. They mean, use other people's money to make themselves feel good. You simply don't use a biblical verse to justify federal spending, when the purpose of the admonishment is to encourage personal charity. Unless, of course, you believe that the biblical verse recommends just such charity.....with your neighbors money.
So you're saying the Federal Government would have no damn business helping Hawaii out in that scenario because the Constitution doesn't grant the authority? Just a simple question.
No. I am saying that " love thy neighbor" has nothing to do with federal expenditures. Unless, of course, you believe the admonishment is a sufficient justification to take money from the taxpayers. Which is apparently what you believe, or you would not have used it to justify federal expenditures.
Ive spent two deployments in combat as a Marine Corps infantryman. My first deployment we had 16 killed and around 263 wounded out of a 600+ man battalion. Our paychecks? Much lower than unionized public workers both in the police, fire department, and the bearcats, especially when you take in to effect benefits in many liberal municipalities. As an E-5 I was making $26,000 per year. The average military retiree makes anywhere between 1500 enlisted-2900 officer after 20 years of service and risking their lives. But it isnt about the pay. Its about serving your country and preserving our way of life. You dont sign up for such a job for benefits, retirement, and an 8 hour work day. No, not in combat arms. We offered a public SERVICE. We arent allowed to unionize nor do we feel the need to. You wont find us threatening to walk off the job, hire goons to protest on our behalf, run political ads on billboards, or quit when the government lowers our pay increases to under-pace inflation. Nevertheless, while liberals see fit to cry about the benefits to unionized police officers and firefighters they certainly also see fit to trash the military budget of which we depend on for our very lives. While liberals say to the public we cant spend enough for our unionized rescue workers we were welding iron on the sides of our Humvees and watching democrats threaten to defund the war we were fighting (Though they really didnt mean it but tell that to the enemy) as the enemy increased attacks to ensure that they did. And yet, we continue to do the mission with what we got and you never hear us complain about it. Not even when we received our absentee ballots 3 days before the 2004 Presidential election. Why? Because we serve and we serve with what we got and we serve what we get paid with regardless of the amount. That alone is the satisfaction we receive from doing our duty. If the government sees fit to lower our pay then fine. If its sees fit to decrease our numbers then fine. If it wants to defund our programs then fine. Why? Because we serve for the satisfaction of serving. And if it means that if we must work with less to ensure that our country survives then so be it. Dont cry to me about firefighters and police officers.
I respect the police and the firefighters, I also highly respect those servicemen who risked their lives so we can sit home and cry over politics, thank you for what you have done for all of us.
I also don't know why the Democratic party treats soldiers like dirt and not wanting to count their votes, they above all people have EARNED the right to vote and every measure should be made to see each and everyone counted.
I don't see how the Democratic party can treat service men this crappy and then pretend to care about police and firemen.
We also need to pay servicemen, police and firemen the wages Hollywood nut jobs get and give hollywood nutjobs low pay,
Because we don't belong to a union, people don't directly see the results of our service, and we vote republican by a 3 to 1 margin. Therefore, we dont count as much as firefighters and policemen to Democrats.
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/102708tns_nov-poll.pdf
USATODAY.com - Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
.
That's called charity. Stealing from others, even if you give it to the needy, is still left.It is just sending help where help is needed. It's called Loving Thy Neighbor.
Nah, keep bringing it on. See, unlike many, I'm truly not afraid of my principles. If it means voting for someone I never thought I would, so be it. A man makes decisions not from peer pressure, but from what he feels is right. No one would walk with their left eye closed just because the pretty view is on the right, would they? Well, some would. The Tea Party was a great thing from 2009 til about a year ago, in my humble opinion. My views are just more represented by Democrats mostly right now. I've got the courage to admit that, and vote that way.
What principles? I don't see you having any.
The old "I used to be a Conservative (uh huh, really, truly) and then I saw the light" was old and boring and unconvincing when David Brock did it, you think it gets MORE convincing and effective with the passing years?
LOL
Name change, Dude; maybe Bucs Starkey or Jake Brock, something where we'll have no idea its your new name
So you think I was a fake right winger for.......the past 4 years on USMB.....just to all of a sudden jump out and say I'm switching in August 2012?
Wow
I respect the police and the firefighters, I also highly respect those servicemen who risked their lives so we can sit home and cry over politics, thank you for what you have done for all of us.
I also don't know why the Democratic party treats soldiers like dirt and not wanting to count their votes, they above all people have EARNED the right to vote and every measure should be made to see each and everyone counted.
I don't see how the Democratic party can treat service men this crappy and then pretend to care about police and firemen.
We also need to pay servicemen, police and firemen the wages Hollywood nut jobs get and give hollywood nutjobs low pay,
Because we don't belong to a union, people don't directly see the results of our service, and we vote republican by a 3 to 1 margin. Therefore, we dont count as much as firefighters and policemen to Democrats.
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/102708tns_nov-poll.pdf
USATODAY.com - Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
.
They also "forget" to send you absentee ballots
Because we don't belong to a union, people don't directly see the results of our service, and we vote republican by a 3 to 1 margin. Therefore, we dont count as much as firefighters and policemen to Democrats.
http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/102708tns_nov-poll.pdf
USATODAY.com - Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
.
They also "forget" to send you absentee ballots
If they don't forget send them, they never make it home. If they make it home, they arent counted. If they are counted, some democrat is going to court to ensure they arent counted. If they attempt to fix the problem by granting us extra time, some democrat is once again going to court to cry unfair privilege. See Al Gore or Barack Obama.
So you're saying the Federal Government would have no damn business helping Hawaii out in that scenario because the Constitution doesn't grant the authority? Just a simple question.
No. I am saying that " love thy neighbor" has nothing to do with federal expenditures. Unless, of course, you believe the admonishment is a sufficient justification to take money from the taxpayers. Which is apparently what you believe, or you would not have used it to justify federal expenditures.
Ok. Then forget the Bible. Forget the whole conversation.
Breaking News: Honolulu in massive fire from eruption; Honolulu FD is overwhelmed. LAFD, and other West Coast FD's, can't drive there.
Would you, as president, send aid? Or say "Sorry folks, the constitution doesn't grant me the authority to help"?
Very...simple...question.
What principles? I don't see you having any.
The old "I used to be a Conservative (uh huh, really, truly) and then I saw the light" was old and boring and unconvincing when David Brock did it, you think it gets MORE convincing and effective with the passing years?
LOL
Name change, Dude; maybe Bucs Starkey or Jake Brock, something where we'll have no idea its your new name
So you think I was a fake right winger for.......the past 4 years on USMB.....just to all of a sudden jump out and say I'm switching in August 2012?
Wow
Crusader Frank probably thinks Olympia Snowe is a fifth columnist.
What they dont realize is most FD's also have certified paramedics on the truck. And respond to ALL medical calls. So a person having a minor medical problem has a paramedic show up. If he/she can treat it there, guess what? It's free. You dont pay for an ambulance ride. You dont pay for an ER visit. Which means healthcare costs never happen. Good for everyone involved.
There is no fire or ambulance in the nation that provides treatment or care.
They provide stabilization enough transport.
I think you are making this up as you go.
They also "forget" to send you absentee ballots
If they don't forget send them, they never make it home. If they make it home, they arent counted. If they are counted, some democrat is going to court to ensure they arent counted. If they attempt to fix the problem by granting us extra time, some democrat is once again going to court to cry unfair privilege. See Al Gore or Barack Obama.
Yes, but the ballots made out:
Name: Mickey Mouse
Address: a Park Bench, OH
Party Affiliation: Democrat (like you had to ask)
all get counted, twice
Bucs, when did you first notice these Progressive feelings?
