"Government" is Not the Problem.

[Divine Wind]

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

According to you, Congress can do it. According to me, they are prevented by the Bill of Rights and other limitations put on them by the Constitution.

BTW, thanks for the tacit admission Bush wasn't responsible for the 2003 Iraq War. We all know it was Congress and "We, the People".

Time until "Bu...bu...but that's different!!!" 10...9...8....

 

[Slade3200]

Do you hear yourself??? Yes it's because of the people... The people who elect leaders, who then create laws, and a system to enforce those laws. The government is made up of the people. It represents the people. It's not your enemy. We are the richest and most powerful country In the world and you bitch about movements that try and feed the poor and take care of the elderly, build roads, keep our water and environmental clean, etc etc etc. grow the fuck up... the world isnt just about you.

Ok, time for you to back up your bullshit and post some quotes of me opposing feeding the poor or caring for the elderly and the other two overused talking points you threw out there that you can't back up. Do it or STFU.

I dont need a quote, we can clear it up right now... If you support entitlement programs and spending and the work of the environmental protection programs say so and I'll apologize for my statement.

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

 

[Divine Wind]

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation

And there we have it, folks! Proof positive that there is no difference between "modern" Liberals and "modern" Conservatives: Both want to shred the Constitution and wipe their asses with it.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

You should take your own advice.

 

[Slade3200]

Does the president have the right to ban an entire religion from our country? Or would it take an act of congress

According to you, Congress can do it. According to me, they are prevented by the Bill of Rights and other limitations put on them by the Constitution.

BTW, thanks for the tacit admission Bush wasn't responsible for the 2003 Iraq War. We all know it was Congress and "We, the People".

Time until "Bu...bu...but that's different!!!" 10...9...8....

I never blamed bush, that pile of crap goes deeper than just one man... And it is true that the president and congress can pass laws or imposed rules, regulations, sanctions if there is a majority vote and/or it is within their authority. If it is unconstitutional then there is the Supreme Court which can over rule. It's how our government works

 

[S.J.]

Ok, time for you to back up your bullshit and post some quotes of me opposing feeding the poor or caring for the elderly and the other two overused talking points you threw out there that you can't back up. Do it or STFU.

I dont need a quote, we can clear it up right now... If you support entitlement programs and spending and the work of the environmental protection programs say so and I'll apologize for my statement.

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help. I tried to explain it to you.

 

[Slade3200]

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation

And there we have it, folks! Proof positive that there is no difference between "modern" Liberals and "modern" Conservatives: Both want to shred the Constitution and wipe their asses with it.

I guess the same goes for those that wanted to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote... Damn those constitution haters. At least they have clean asses

 

[Slade3200]

I dont need a quote, we can clear it up right now... If you support entitlement programs and spending and the work of the environmental protection programs say so and I'll apologize for my statement.

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help.

You already did and your point still does not make practical sense. I responded and you dodged... So how about you answer now with something of substances

 

[S.J.]

Well there you go. If Trump gets elected and bans Muslims then I guess he has the authority to do so. Honestly I have looked into he legality and I take what all posters here say with a grain of salt. Regardless, I imagine it would cause great divide and controversy in this country so I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation

And there we have it, folks! Proof positive that there is no difference between "modern" Liberals and "modern" Conservatives: Both want to shred the Constitution and wipe their asses with it.

I guess the same goes for those that wanted to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote... Damn those constitution haters. At least they have clean asses

Those would be Democrats. The Republican Party was started by the Abolitionists.

 

[Divine Wind]

I never blamed bush, that pile of crap goes deeper than just one man... And it is true that the president and congress can pass laws or imposed rules, regulations, sanctions if there is a majority vote and/or it is within their authority. If it is unconstitutional then there is the Supreme Court which can over rule. It's how our government works

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Didn't you say our Constitution is rule of the majority? As a majority we elect our President and Congress. If they pass a law to make marriage only between a man and a woman, ban abortion, ban Muslims and make homosexuality a death penalty offense just like the Bible says, then how can SCOTUS overrule it?

 

[S.J.]

Which programs? Be specific.

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help.

You already did and your point still does not make practical sense. I responded and you dodged... So how about you answer now with something of substances

I didn't dodge a damn thing, you just don't understand the meaning of the words. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the difference.

 

[Divine Wind]

I guess the same goes for those that wanted to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote... Damn those constitution haters. At least they have clean asses

And, according to you, "We, the People" can reinstitute slavery and deprive women, gays and/or Muslims of their right to vote by majority rule.

 

[Slade3200]

I never blamed bush, that pile of crap goes deeper than just one man... And it is true that the president and congress can pass laws or imposed rules, regulations, sanctions if there is a majority vote and/or it is within their authority. If it is unconstitutional then there is the Supreme Court which can over rule. It's how our government works

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Didn't you say our Constitution is rule of the majority? As a majority we elect our President and Congress. If they pass a law to make marriage only between a man and a woman, ban abortion, ban Muslims and make homosexuality a death penalty offense just like the Bible says, then how can SCOTUS overrule it?

Do you really need an answer to that, ask any middle schooler how our government works

 

[Slade3200]

It's not about specific programs, I'll be the first to say that there needs to be major reform in our gov programs. What we are talking about is ideology and role of government, and if I recall you are a pretty strong advocate of anti government involvement. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help.

You already did and your point still does not make practical sense. I responded and you dodged... So how about you answer now with something of substances

I didn't dodge a damn thing, you just don't understand the meaning of the words. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the difference.

another dodge... Are you trying to be funny

 

[S.J.]

I never blamed bush, that pile of crap goes deeper than just one man... And it is true that the president and congress can pass laws or imposed rules, regulations, sanctions if there is a majority vote and/or it is within their authority. If it is unconstitutional then there is the Supreme Court which can over rule. It's how our government works

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Didn't you say our Constitution is rule of the majority? As a majority we elect our President and Congress. If they pass a law to make marriage only between a man and a woman, ban abortion, ban Muslims and make homosexuality a death penalty offense just like the Bible says, then how can SCOTUS overrule it?

Do you really need an answer to that, ask any middle schooler how our government works

Ask any middle schooler the difference between "promote" and "provide".

 

[S.J.]

Yes, you're wrong. Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting". Once you understand the difference you can understand my position. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and I advocate following their lead. Liberals think they have the right to interpret the Constitution to fit their agenda (which is to control everyone and everything). That's not what made us the nation we are.

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help.

You already did and your point still does not make practical sense. I responded and you dodged... So how about you answer now with something of substances

I didn't dodge a damn thing, you just don't understand the meaning of the words. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the difference.

another dodge... Are you trying to be funny

Are you pretending to be stupid?

 

[Slade3200]

I never blamed bush, that pile of crap goes deeper than just one man... And it is true that the president and congress can pass laws or imposed rules, regulations, sanctions if there is a majority vote and/or it is within their authority. If it is unconstitutional then there is the Supreme Court which can over rule. It's how our government works

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Didn't you say our Constitution is rule of the majority? As a majority we elect our President and Congress. If they pass a law to make marriage only between a man and a woman, ban abortion, ban Muslims and make homosexuality a death penalty offense just like the Bible says, then how can SCOTUS overrule it?

Did I say our constitution was rule of majority? No I didn't... our government is comprised of leaders elected by the majority of people... They make laws and enact laws by majority vote... Laws and actions are bound by the constitution which is enforced by the Supreme Court. The constitution can be amended by majority rule, yes, but there is a process for all the above. Why do I need to spell all of this out for you?

 

[Boss]

Government is supposed to be involved but it goes back to the difference between "providing" and "promoting".

It's even more than that if you read Federalist 41. Madison explains the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as nothing more than a reiteration of the enumerated powers of government. It is a literary device used in order to convey what has already been extensively outlined in "general" terms. He also explains how it cannot be construed any other way.

So whenever you read "promote the general welfare" it simply means to generally do the things enumerated in Article 1 Section 8... nothing more. Progressives have perverted and misconstrued this for years, with the willing aid of the SCOTUS.

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you really need an answer to that, ask any middle schooler how our government works

No, but obviously you do. Not only are you now dodging the truth that you are wrong, but you are backtracking on Joe's OP premise: that government says what our rights are.

The guns in your house are there because you have permission to have them from the government.

And women, blacks, gays, Muslims and everyone else can only live and/or vote if the government says they can. If the Tyranny of the Majority rules against them, they need to suck it up because they are just plainly fucked.....if you believe AVG-JOE and Slade3200.

 

[Slade3200]

That's a very bias and distorted interpretation of what liberals think, I'd work on being more objective and realistic if I were you.

What is your idea of how the gov should be promoting rather than providing? That statement makes no sense to me

If you don't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide", I can't help you. There are dictionaries and encyclopedias you can reference if you need help.

You already did and your point still does not make practical sense. I responded and you dodged... So how about you answer now with something of substances

I didn't dodge a damn thing, you just don't understand the meaning of the words. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the difference.

another dodge... Are you trying to be funny

Are you pretending to be stupid?

Let's play a game called answer questions that are asked of you... Only rule is you can't ask a question until you answer what's been asked of you... I'll go first: how would you like to see our government promote entitlements that is different then how YOU say they provide?