Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Uncensored2008]

Then you haven't read a word I wrote; I'm for making the constitution as specific as possible so that the "authoratarian" government is boxed into a very small box.

It seems to me that you want the subjects om a very tight corner.

I want the document to say how much they can spend; not the blank check of the vague document we have now. ;

Replace the "Bill of Rights" with a "Bill of Musts," perhaps?

Amendment 1: Congress shall make laws defining proper speech to stop hate speech and to ensure a press that is supportive of state goals; and to ensure that religion is kept from the public with exercise only in pre-approved places as to be determined by the state; and to restrict assembly and redress by the subjects to "free speech zones" and staged "town hall" appearances.

Funny that I don't support you of the far left rewriting the constitution....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really think that incidents of food poisoning have gone down?

I more than think they have, I've documented the fact.

List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That hype is up does not equate to the number increasing.

Remember the salmonella-infected tomatoes of 2008? How about the tainted peanut butter of 2007? Or the bad spinach of 2006? These outbreaks sickened thousands and cost the produce industry hundreds of millions. Yet somehow the Republican Party has forgotten about them.

Again, massive media coverage does not equate to increase in frequency. What made these news is that vegetables, rather than meats were the source.

Check out the CDC on the subject.

Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States

 

[Uncensored2008]

They wouldn't be nearly as effective, obviously.

Nothing could be less obvious.

They might be less just, but I assure you that they would be far more effective.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

They wouldn't be nearly as effective, obviously.

Nothing could be less obvious.

They might be less just, but I assure you that they would be far more effective.

Highly doubtful. A handful of testosterone-addled bozos doing their own thing versus an organized government? I know where I'd put my money on who will accomplish more.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Highly doubtful. A handful of testosterone-addled bozos doing their own thing versus an organized government? I know where I'd put my money on who will accomplish more.

Killing people is effective for keeping them from offending.

Whether just and whether the rights of the accused are protected is the question.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just because an individual knows how to look after their own best interests doesn't mean that they won't try to cheat you at the first opportunity. Any attempt to prevent this by means other than a government has historically failed.

Show me a government that has prevented that and I'll concede that you have a point. Otherise I'll have to point out that you are again missing the point being made here.

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

The left thinks we have some collective values as Americans, such as equal rights and opportunity, and legislation has brought about positive societal changes that would not have occurred without it.

I trust the government because it is composed of American citizens and it accomplishes some needed collective business.

The right thinks it's superior. The left can live with the right, but the right cannot live with the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

The left thinks we have some collective values as Americans, such as equal rights and opportunity, and legislation has brought about positive societal changes that would not have occurred without it.

I trust the government because it is composed of American citizens and it accomplishes some needed collective business.

The right thinks it's superior. The left can live with the right, but the right cannot live with the left.

Why don't you rephrase that to say what you mean without being ad hominem?

 

[candycorn]

And carnivores are a group; are they not?

Which government entitlement is it that you imagine to be given to carnivores?

Well, the inspection of meat for one.

Look, if there were a group of people who were eating, lets say, the bark of pine trees instead of meat. And we set up a group of inspectors to inspect the bark; that would be an entitlement wouldn't it?

Nobody is forced to eat meat any more than people are forced to eat pine bark.

Now, personally, I don't think it is an entitlement. I'm not arguing that it is. What I am arguing is that you can't have it both ways; swearing that the government only do exactly what these old white dudes in Philly said it would do on a 224 year old document in one breath then saying it's perfectly okay to violate their words in the next.

I wanted to throw that disclaimer in there since you're obviously following me around in some lame attempt to mis-characterize my words.

 

[candycorn]

Then you haven't read a word I wrote; I'm for making the constitution as specific as possible so that the "authoratarian" government is boxed into a very small box.

It seems to me that you want the subjects om a very tight corner.

I want the document to say how much they can spend; not the blank check of the vague document we have now. ;

Replace the "Bill of Rights" with a "Bill of Musts," perhaps?

Amendment 1: Congress shall make laws defining proper speech to stop hate speech and to ensure a press that is supportive of state goals; and to ensure that religion is kept from the public with exercise only in pre-approved places as to be determined by the state; and to restrict assembly and redress by the subjects to "free speech zones" and staged "town hall" appearances.

Funny that I don't support you of the far left rewriting the constitution....

Neither do I.

I do support language limiting how much congress can spend.
I do support language forcing redistricting to be done more apolitically.
I do support language forcing Presidential debates to take place on scheduled intervals.
I do support language moving election day to an election week so grievances can be remedied.
I do support language forcing public airwaves to be given, free of charge, to all candidates for President who put themselves onto the ballots in a certain percentage of states (25 states minimum).
I do support language barring any sort of Presidential power to pardon.
I do support strengthening the language where a President must get Congress's approval to move troops or at least the Congressional leadership where having a public vote is impractical.

I support a great many ideas to strengthen the document and ensure prosperity. You're silly little one liners are silly but in no way represent my views. Have a nice night.

 

[Susan45]

You really think that incidents of food poisoning have gone down?

I more than think they have, I've documented the fact.

List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That hype is up does not equate to the number increasing.

Remember the salmonella-infected tomatoes of 2008? How about the tainted peanut butter of 2007? Or the bad spinach of 2006? These outbreaks sickened thousands and cost the produce industry hundreds of millions. Yet somehow the Republican Party has forgotten about them.

Again, massive media coverage does not equate to increase in frequency. What made these news is that vegetables, rather than meats were the source.

Check out the CDC on the subject.

Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States

The article you posted is over 10 yrs. old.

Food-borne Illnesses From Leafy Greens on Rise in U.S.
Increase not explained by higher consumption; more control urged from harvest to preparation

Food-borne Illnesses From Leafy Greens on Rise in U.S.

Why Some Foods Are Riskier Today

Within the past few weeks there has been a salmonella outbreak linked to a sausage and salami facility in Rhode Island, a recall of chewy chocolate chip granola bars in California also potentially contaminated with salmonella and a recall of cheese in Washington state potentially contaminated with listeria monocytogenes, which can cause serious, sometimes fatal, infections. While the sausage contamination resulted in 225 people becoming ill in 44 states, the other two recalls didn't involve any illnesses. Without stricter food-safety enforcement, though, consumers may not be so lucky.

Foodborne Illnesses Are on the Rise - WSJ.com

I would guess that you do not do the grocery shopping in your household, because I think if you did you would be more aware that there are more contamination now then in the past. I mean peanut butter? Who ever would have thought we'd have to be careful about peanut butter. Times have changed and anyone that thinks we should willy-nilly cut back on the CDC or FDA is just crazy.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

The left thinks we have some collective values as Americans, such as equal rights and opportunity, and legislation has brought about positive societal changes that would not have occurred without it.

I trust the government because it is composed of American citizens and it accomplishes some needed collective business.

The right thinks it's superior. The left can live with the right, but the right cannot live with the left.

Why don't you rephrase that to say what you mean without being ad hominem?

Why don't you edit my post so that it's tolerable to you?

 

[idb]

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

It has nothing to do with civic mindedness, it has to do with an environment conducive to prosperity. In other words, we don't let the thugs shoot it out in front of our store because it is bad for business. This changes when government demands that we DO allow the thugs to roam wild, as is currently the case. 30 years ago, "no loitering" meant the proprietor would drive the hoodlums off with a baseball bat or a shotgun. Now the cops would throw the proprietor in prison and the hoodlums would be awarded damages for emotional distress.

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Show me a government that has prevented that and I'll concede that you have a point. Otherise I'll have to point out that you are again missing the point being made here.

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Highly doubtful. A handful of testosterone-addled bozos doing their own thing versus an organized government? I know where I'd put my money on who will accomplish more.

Killing people is effective for keeping them from offending.

Whether just and whether the rights of the accused are protected is the question.

So is jailing people. Killing happens to have other undesirable consequences, however. Especially if you have the wrong perpetrator.

 

[saveliberty]

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

Your a contradiction and a joke.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

Your a contradiction and a joke.

Name calling loses most of its punch when you can't spell "you're."

 

[candycorn]

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

Both sides of the mouth...thanks for highlighting it so well.

 

[Foxfyre]

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

No it isn't. The Constitution defines what the U.S. federal government is intended to do and how we will select and replace citizens who are responsible to implement that. The Federal government will provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare meaning everybody, not a targeted group, and secure our unalienable rights (blessings of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)

If you cannot see how human trafficking is a violation of unalienable rights and therefore within the intended Constitutional authority of the federal government, then you would simply be pretty dense and ignorant. I prefer to see you as not dense or ignorant but rather employing the tactic of throwing out red herrings because you cannot or are unwilling to debate the actual topic.

At least you haven't gone ad hominem as CandyCorn has which is usually a dead giveaway that the person is out of any constructive argument.

Disclaimer: the original Constitution allowed human trafficking because it was the only way a union could be formed at the time. When public opinion, mostly motivated and driven by devout Christians, was sufficiently strong enough, slavery was abolished and the Constitution amended.

A free people generally will get it right even if through trial and error. This is testified to by the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution. Each corrected injustice and provided more freedom.

We get in trouble when we start taking freedoms away.

 

[Gadawg73]

Reminder from the OP:

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

Now moving right along:

Though many of the Founders commented on it, with all concurring that charity or benevolence was not a prerogative of the federal government, James Madison was probably the most 'vocal' of all. Each of the following quotes can be placed within the full context of the remarks without changing the literal meaning in any way:

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"--
James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

Entitlement to be free has 2 sides. Free to pursue whatever we want and also free FROM those that pursue nothing other than what they believe others should provide for them.