Republicans want your children in the sweatshops

[uscitizen]

Children should have the freedom to work and help out their families in these hard times.
Their size makes them ideal for coal mines with short seams of coal.

Thik of how many of them we could get off of the welfare rolls.

Why do you think corporations sponsor shows like Bob the builder? Train em young!

 

[California Girl]

So, no one actually WANTS children working in sweatshops. He said it is unconstitutional. That's not 'wanting' kids in sweatshops. That's an idiot spinning something to play it against a politician.... and from that one politician, into a swipe against a party.

Apply critical thinking and you can separate the facts from the spin. It ain't hard.

Ever notice how liberals all seem to think the Constitution is outdated?

It is.

Or do you think we shouldn't have an Air Force?

Or that the people of the right to bear nuclear weapons may not be infringed?

As I said, when you started your other, incredibly stupid, thread.

 

[JBeukema]

Ever notice how liberals all seem to think the Constitution is outdated?

It is.

Or do you think we shouldn't have an Air Force?

Or that the people of the right to bear nuclear weapons may not be infringed?

As I said, when you started your other, incredibly stupid, thread.

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

 

[whitehall]

Weren't you listening lukemia? Your own party says that incindery hateful rhetoric like this caused the Tuscon shooter to snap. Say what? Only rhetoric directed at democrats is harmful?

 

[Revere]

It is.

Or do you think we shouldn't have an Air Force?

Or that the people of the right to bear nuclear weapons may not be infringed?

As I said, when you started your other, incredibly stupid, thread.

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

 

[JBeukema]

My party?


I didn't know we were having a party.


Did you bring orderves?


And what are you babbling about? It's an established fact that the cons want to do away with minimum wage, OSHA, and the Clean Air and Water acts.

It's also an established fact that the Constitution says congress is to provide for the general welfare- but mentions no air force.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[JBeukema]

As I said, when you started your other, incredibly stupid, thread.

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

Through the army, militias, navy, and naval forces.

It does say congress is to provide for the general welfare.

 

[uscitizen]

As I said, when you started your other, incredibly stupid, thread.

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

But not for the national offense.
Per the constitution our military can only be used in the defense of the USA.
Not in defense of South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.
How many times has the Air Force actually defended America?
Remember now in WW2 it was not the Air Force.

 

[Revere]

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

But not for the national offense.
Per the constitution our military can only be used in the defense of the USA.
Not in defense of South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.

You'd have to add WWI and the European theatre of WWII to that list, too, since none of the adversaries in question actually attacked the US.

Congress authorizes all defense spending. You'd have to challenge that to find out if it was Constitutional.

 

[California Girl]

A brilliant retort. I see you cannot make any constitutional argument for the air force without admitting that the minimum wage is constitutional. Nor can you argue against the minimum wage on constitutional grounds without telling everyone in the Air Force that they're part of an evil communist conspiracy against the constitution.

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

But not for the national offense.
Per the constitution our military can only be used in the defense of the USA.
Not in defense of South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.
How many times has the Air Force actually defended America?
Remember now in WW2 it was not the Air Force.

He said the existence of the Air Force is unconstitutional. It is not. How we use our military was not the subject.

Why can people not focus on the actual argument without stretching all over the place?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libs would not have allowed Michelangelo to work for Il Magnifico.

 

[uscitizen]

The Constitution provides for the national defense.

But not for the national offense.
Per the constitution our military can only be used in the defense of the USA.
Not in defense of South Korea, South Vietnam, etc.
How many times has the Air Force actually defended America?
Remember now in WW2 it was not the Air Force.

He said the existence of the Air Force is unconstitutional. It is not. How we use our military was not the subject.

Why can people not focus on the actual argument without stretching all over the place?

True I will just start another thread on the unconstitutional use of our military.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did Rdean hack JB's account?

 

[whitehall]

My party?


I didn't know we were having a party.


Did you bring orderves?


And what are you babbling about? It's an established fact that the cons want to do away with minimum wage, OSHA, and the Clean Air and Water acts.

It's also an established fact that the Constitution says congress is to provide for the general welfare- but mentions no air force.

You can't have it both ways.

You are fairly ignorant aren't you? You attack republicans by name and pretend you don't know what a political party is.

 

[blu]

Be so kind as to point out where the Constitution grants to the feds the power to do any of those things?

Once again, if you WANT the Government to do them, PASS an AMENDMENT. Don't just make up shit claiming it is some how authorized.

The Senator is correct.

some people really can't get past emotional appeals

 

[blu]

Just because he is pointing out that the constitution does not grant these powers to congress (Since the Supreme court disagrees with him, his views are as relavant as yours) does not mean he wants to compel kids into coal mines at 4. You make to much of a leap with your thread title

yep, fallacies abound in the OP

 

[JBeukema]

Funny that some of those defending the republican cited are the same ones attacking me for using his very same argument in the spin-off thread


Another class of party-think at work


I swear, you people make for some interesting case studies

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

JBeukema hack of the decade?
I think maybe so.

 

[Avatar4321]

They are unconstitutional. labor laws are a perogative of the States.

But obviously there are some who care more about attacking Republicans then ending corruption in our system. It's disappointing.

 

[thanatos144]

the constitution is the law that restricts government not the people.

I wish more people would get that into their heads. It is not rocket science.

First of all all not all of the constitution is solely meant to "restrict" the government. I wish people would get that into their heads. Read the 16th amendment for example, and tell me how that "restricts" government.

The constitution is in place to state (or potentially change) what the government can and cannot do-it's not solely to "restrict" as you two have stated.

Now the issue of child labor laws is whether the government has the right to say whether children shouldn't be able to work or not correct? So the real question is what laws can the government pass or not.

So how can government have the ability to create murder laws, but not have the ability to create laws preventing child labor? By the way, in both examples the government is restricting actions of citizens, neither which are in the constitution. When you two can explain that-then you can continue you're misunderstanding of the constitution.

So now would either one of you care to explain how one of these is constitutional, and the other isn't. Go!

it restricts government on how it can take direct income taxes you fool. it should be amended cause as it has been shown the federal government cant be trusted to handle that much money.