Why do you want more government in your life?

[Newby]

You know what's the point of coming on here and talking at each other if you're just going to play partisan roles and circle-jerk each other?

"Consider the source"...way to ******* go there buddy.

Also, great job side-stepping my whole ******* post on the welfare myth. You have jack shit to say on that issue, don't you?

I honestly dont know why I ******* come here.

BAH....Man up....we're only jerking your chain....I'll read your "WHOLE ******* POST on the welfare myth," m'k?

I think what he posted was the myth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh so that's what you like...silencing opposition. Great job with that.

No one is silencing anyone. But if you're going to post a bunch of crap and straw men what do you expect?
Want some cheese to go with that whine?

 

[Samson]

OK I read it.

Now what?

 

[Vanquish]

ha ha ha, yeah I know. Just giving it back the same way I got it.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh so that's what you like...silencing opposition. Great job with that.

No one is silencing anyone. But if you're going to post a bunch of crap and straw men what do you expect?
Want some cheese to go with that whine?

Pat yourself on the back for knowing the name of a logical/debate fallacy...but I was on point.

The post I was responding to had to do with a characterization of the federal government as a handout system that did no good and takes advantage of the public at large.

I responded with FACTS about how that dog wont hunt.

I love it when conservatives say that liberals (which I'm not, but you conservatives piss me off so much that you're the side I respond to the most) don't use facts. It's a bald-faced lie, but it keeps getting repeated.

Maybe you do...but I don't just post shit to post shit.

 

[Samson]

Maybe you do...but I don't just post shit to post shit.

That would make a nice siggy.

 

[boedicca]

In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup" or that it significantly reduces the incentive to work. The GOA report was summarized in Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, "The Historical Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate," The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenriech and France Piven, editors, (New York: Pantheon, 1987), pp. 58-62

Don't base your opinions on myth and superstition about "those lazy people". Base it on facts.

Your "facts" are rather stale - and the editors are highly suspect.

 

[Samson]

You know what's the point of coming on here and talking at each other if you're just going to play partisan roles and circle-jerk each other?

"Consider the source"...way to ******* go there buddy.

Also, great job side-stepping my whole ******* post on the welfare myth. You have jack shit to say on that issue, don't you?

I honestly dont know why I ******* come here.

BAH....Man up....we're only jerking your chain....I'll read your "WHOLE ******* POST on the welfare myth," m'k?

I think what he posted was the myth.

Meh.....frankly, I doubt that anyone is becoming wealthy off gubment checks except gubment employees with 21+ yrs, lobbyists, defense contractors......everyone except an 18yo high school drop out and single mom with three kids.

 

[drsmith1072]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

This is funny coming from the people who run to government for help whenever they want government to define marriage, tell people what they can an can't do with their bodies and basically try to force their moral values onto the rest of society through goverment.

 

[midcan5]

Whicbh businesses are you talking about? How are you paying for corporate profits through your taxes?

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[drsmith1072]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

Because it's easier than taking personal responsibility.

There is someone to blame for your own shortcomings and failures.

OMG CG has solved the mystery. Now we know why conservatives are constantly trying to blame obama and the demcorats for everything. It's because it's easier than taking personal responsibility because there is someone to blame for their own shortcomings and failures.

 

[Vanquish]

drsmith, my hat's off to you. not merely for the fact I agree with what you're saying, but because you do it more eloquently than I do.

 

[The Rabbi]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

This is funny coming from the people who run to government for help whenever they want government to define marriage, tell people what they can an can't do with their bodies and basically try to force their moral values onto the rest of society through goverment.

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

 

[drsmith1072]

Without Government their is chaos.

With government in moderation, there is stability to a degree. Certainly the best choice. The variables being the Quality of Leadership.

With government in excess there is...............well..........look around we have a good sample of what's to come.

Larger more intrusive government brings with it a multitude of issues, one of them raising it's ugly head is that the citizens have less effect in controlling it.

I think you forgot one

With Perceived government in excess promoted by right wing talking points an propaganda There is a group of people who are sometimes willingly duped into believing the propaganda that their taxes have been raised when they haven't, the government is going take away their guns when there is no plan to do so, the government taking over an industry when they are only controlling interest in one company in that industry until they pay back what they owe, the government is taking over the healthcare industry when nothing in the bill supports this belief, and that the government is taking over student loans when in reality they are ending the socialistic program of subsidizing private bank issued student loans.

A misguided perception that a more intrusive government exists brings with it a multitude of wackos who are in the minority and who seem to believe that their minority status creates a situation where the citizens have less effect in controlling it. however, that is based on their misguded belief that they are the only citizens that matter because they are the only true patriots where as anyone who disagrees with their position of the day is un-American and therefore inconsequential.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The writings in the constitution are very specific within the rights and powers granted... to reinterpret is to change... and as stated, any change to the constitution must be done through the amendment process.. this is laid forth in the constitution.... for example, things like Roe v Wade are reinterpretations... to have a 'right' to abortion, by the rule of law in the constitution, we would indeed have to have an amendment to make it so... there should indeed be very few challenges to constitutional interpretation or reinterpretation away from original wording or intent... and IF constitutionality questions are indeed thought to need to go to the SC, all I ask is that we follow the constitution and go to the amendment process... for the types of cases the judiciary of the fed can here are specifically laid out in section 2 of article 3

Again.. if SC judges can continually reinterpret rights or constitutionality and indeed change the intent or standing of the constitution without going thru the amendment process... then indeed we have no inalienable rights at all...
For again... Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Fed does not get to just up it's powers because it wants to or because 50.00000001% of the populace wants it to.. there is indeed a process for the constitution, which is the rule of law for the country, to go thru change

That did not in any way come within a mile of answering my question.

If you take the power of determining constitutionality away from the Supreme Court, who do you give it to,

specifically, and by what process do they determine constitutionality?

Again.... that power is not to be held by the SC now, via the exact powers granted within the constitution... there is no power to reinterpret what is specifically written within the constitution... any reinterpretation is by nature a change to the constitution, and that change MUST go thru the amendment process.... the SC is basically an appeals court, except in cases of treason, etc... it is to determine the legality or the strength/correctness on the appealed case in it's docket....the constitution should not be continually reinterpreted at the whim of justices or by any government official...

So a basic answer to your question is all 3 branches of the federal government, as it must go thru the amendment process

Say a state passes a law that bans private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, han dguns shotguns rifles, the lot.

Who has the authority to declare that law unconstitutional?

 

[drsmith1072]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

This is funny coming from the people who run to government for help whenever they want government to define marriage, tell people what they can an can't do with their bodies and basically try to force their moral values onto the rest of society through goverment.

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

 

[drsmith1072]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

I don't think it s good/smart to just say that government in general is good or bad. It would be saying that an apple in general is bad before eating the specific apple and knowing what it tastes like, some apples are bad and others are good: this is not much different with governments. (srry for the very simple explaination, it s just the first comparison that came to my mind )


The fact of the matter is that governments have brought us to where we are today, wether we like it or not. For centuries governments have ruled us and provided us wealth and prosperity, but also have caused us harm (by waging wars, corruption, ...). Like many other things government is like a tool that can be used for 2 things: to harm or to protect/improve.

So to say in general that government is bad would be an ignorant and stupid comment. In the same way you can not say that a government is good to solve everything.


What you re also ignoring is that governments can also provide individuals with freedom instead of denying it to them, a government can make it so by creating laws that enable this situation were people can be able to do things freely (free speech, freedom of expression, ...). A government provides you a safe society to live in: a police force and a military that protect your rights and freedom.

It will help you when you are in serious trouble: if a natural disaster happens, you or your family are being assaulted by another person for no good reason, it will provide your society with the means to increase your freedom of movement (roads, bridges, airports, canals, railroads, ...), ...

Unlike in an anarchy (place with no government), were people can be also "free" but not in the same way: they can be oppressed by others who use violence to achieve what they want.



If you look at all the civilications of the past, you ll notice that all of them were ruled by governments and in certain cases more government was good. Look at how the roman empire improved by implementing more laws and rules (over the centuries).

I m assuming with freedom you mean a gov that keeps making more laws and regulations that restrict how people can behave: It s just wrong to assume that rules and the institution that makes them are always bad, it s like having a sport with no rules. I know at first it can be fun to do, but after a while you would like to do a sport in a more efficient way. That s why certain rules in a sport game are good to improve the game, but if 1 rule is bad then it does not mean you should ban the institution that made the rules: you should figure out a way to ban the bad rule (elect new people that would ban the bad rule).


So the irony of your assumption may be that the reason for your freedom is the government.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

IMO the constitution grants them however, the goverment protects them or takes them away when necessary.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a felon then that right that shall not be infringed shall be infringed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is funny coming from the people who run to government for help whenever they want government to define marriage, tell people what they can an can't do with their bodies and basically try to force their moral values onto the rest of society through goverment.

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

There is only a religious right to marry insomuch as the religion grants that right, which I think you'll agree with since one of your next statements is "IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?"

 

[Ringel05]

I don't think it s good/smart to just say that government in general is good or bad. It would be saying that an apple in general is bad before eating the specific apple and knowing what it tastes like, some apples are bad and others are good: this is not much different with governments. (srry for the very simple explaination, it s just the first comparison that came to my mind )


The fact of the matter is that governments have brought us to where we are today, wether we like it or not. For centuries governments have ruled us and provided us wealth and prosperity, but also have caused us harm (by waging wars, corruption, ...). Like many other things government is like a tool that can be used for 2 things: to harm or to protect/improve.

So to say in general that government is bad would be an ignorant and stupid comment. In the same way you can not say that a government is good to solve everything.


What you re also ignoring is that governments can also provide individuals with freedom instead of denying it to them, a government can make it so by creating laws that enable this situation were people can be able to do things freely (free speech, freedom of expression, ...). A government provides you a safe society to live in: a police force and a military that protect your rights and freedom.

It will help you when you are in serious trouble: if a natural disaster happens, you or your family are being assaulted by another person for no good reason, it will provide your society with the means to increase your freedom of movement (roads, bridges, airports, canals, railroads, ...), ...

Unlike in an anarchy (place with no government), were people can be also "free" but not in the same way: they can be oppressed by others who use violence to achieve what they want.



If you look at all the civilications of the past, you ll notice that all of them were ruled by governments and in certain cases more government was good. Look at how the roman empire improved by implementing more laws and rules (over the centuries).

I m assuming with freedom you mean a gov that keeps making more laws and regulations that restrict how people can behave: It s just wrong to assume that rules and the institution that makes them are always bad, it s like having a sport with no rules. I know at first it can be fun to do, but after a while you would like to do a sport in a more efficient way. That s why certain rules in a sport game are good to improve the game, but if 1 rule is bad then it does not mean you should ban the institution that made the rules: you should figure out a way to ban the bad rule (elect new people that would ban the bad rule).


So the irony of your assumption may be that the reason for your freedom is the government.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

IMO the constitution grants them however, the goverment protects them or takes them away when necessary.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a felon then that right that shall not be infringed shall be infringed.

We've already been through this, ya missed it. The rights are unalienable, i.e. already in existence. The Constitution limits the government.

 

[Ringel05]

What?! The Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It's like, you know, a branch of the federal government. You know, like, when they say our federal government is composed of three branches?

You said "the federal government" which inherently refers to all three branchs. You did not specify - duh.

Please shut up.

Please go **** yourself. Oops, I'm sorry, too late.