why does the left unquestionably trust government?

[bigrebnc1775]

Questions rightwinger is to cowardly to answer.

Here are the questions.
1. Did the government lie to us about Iraq?

2. Did the government lie when it said Iraq had WMD's?

3.Did you trust the government when Bush was president?

Leaving the questions unanswered will be a complete failure on your part.

stop spamming, retard. negged

**** you cabbage .

 

[paulitician]

Big Government Nanny Staters don't get to complain when Big Government screws them. They lost that privilege a long time ago. The Big Government Monster is their own creation. So they don't get to complain about it when the other team gets back in power. However,the rest of us do have the right to complain and get angry. We never supported the Big Government Nanny State yet we've had to suffer too. We still have credibility. It's Less Government,not more. More Americans need to start understanding this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

what is one thing that is not in the enumerated powers that the federal government has done well? I can't think of anything.

I have trouble thinking of anything IN the enumerated powers that they haven't managed to make into a huge, bloated, wasteful mess, even when it DOES manage to get its job accomplished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

that is not what you were saying when Bush was in office

proof?

So this 'you' that TruthMocker referred to in her post.... that's you? I can never tell with her... she blathers on about 'you' and 'you people' and 'you guys' and such... who the **** can tell who these 'you's are.

She's a moron.

Doesn't matter who she meant. I distinctly remember the conservatives on the board being quite annoyed with Bush whenever he went all wobbly and mushy-moderate in regards to spending and new programs.

We just weren't willing to tolerate the hypocrisy of a bunch of big-government liberals bashing him for it.

 

[paulitician]

proof?

So this 'you' that TruthMocker referred to in her post.... that's you? I can never tell with her... she blathers on about 'you' and 'you people' and 'you guys' and such... who the **** can tell who these 'you's are.

She's a moron.

Doesn't matter who she meant. I distinctly remember the conservatives on the board being quite annoyed with Bush whenever he went all wobbly and mushy-moderate in regards to spending and new programs.

We just weren't willing to tolerate the hypocrisy of a bunch of big-government liberals bashing him for it.

Yea the Big Government folks do have a habit of being pretty disingenuous. Wait till the other team gets the power back. These same Big Government folks will be bitchin away about all those Government injustices. But like i said,Big Government Nanny Staters don't get to complain about Big Government intrusions. They have lost that privilege. They're the ones who created it so they don't get to complain about it just because the other team has the power back. They just don't have credibility anymore.

 

[Wiseacre]

I simply cannot abide a gov't that treats some better than others, picks winners from losers, and in general wastes a hell of a lot of our tax dollars.

 

[Intense]

I simply cannot abide a gov't that treats some better than others, picks winners from losers, and in general wastes a hell of a lot of our tax dollars.

It is abuse in every sense.

 

[rightwinger]

I simply cannot abide a gov't that treats some better than others, picks winners from losers, and in general wastes a hell of a lot of our tax dollars.

My original question stands

Can anyone name a government that they prefer?

I didn't think so

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I simply cannot abide a gov't that treats some better than others, picks winners from losers, and in general wastes a hell of a lot of our tax dollars.

My original question stands

Can anyone name a government that they prefer?

I didn't think so

You are not owed any answer since you refuse to answer the questions asked to you.

 

[J.E.D]

OH so you didn't know who Jared Loughner was and had to do a quick google search to find out. But yet you can say that Anarchists are more right leaning? All this tells me about you is that you are a hack.

What does one have to do with the other? Speaking of hacks.

Who am I to disagree with you that you are a hack.

I was speaking of you, dumb ass.

 

[auditor0007]

It's a basic view that profit is bad and exploitative. Therefore non profits are inherently good, as is government, while for profits are inherently bad. We see this all the time in health care discussions where insurance companies get slammed while competing gov't entitites are lauded.

The truth is that non profits are every bit as greedy, if not more, than for profits, and less accountable. And government is simply unaccountable.

Trying to use the views of those on the far far left to explain the views of those in the middle is not only off the mark, it's a bit stupid. It's like saying all conservatives think we should get rid of the government completely.

What so many of you seem to forget is that government is not this big boogeyman that created itself and is now the enemy of all hard working people. Government is the people deciding what should be done in a collective effort for the better of everyone. That in no way means that the government should run or control everything or that it should put such constraints on business as to make doing business impossible. However, when the people support things such as certain environmental standards, then it is the government's job to ensure that those standards are upheld, even if it becomes a small thorn in the side of business. Bottom line is that the people decide what and what not government will do for all of us.

can you cite anything in the constitution that backs up what i bolded at all?

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

 

[rightwinger]

Trying to use the views of those on the far far left to explain the views of those in the middle is not only off the mark, it's a bit stupid. It's like saying all conservatives think we should get rid of the government completely.

What so many of you seem to forget is that government is not this big boogeyman that created itself and is now the enemy of all hard working people. Government is the people deciding what should be done in a collective effort for the better of everyone. That in no way means that the government should run or control everything or that it should put such constraints on business as to make doing business impossible. However, when the people support things such as certain environmental standards, then it is the government's job to ensure that those standards are upheld, even if it becomes a small thorn in the side of business. Bottom line is that the people decide what and what not government will do for all of us.

can you cite anything in the constitution that backs up what i bolded at all?

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

I do not understand why the concept is so hard to grasp

The founding fathers never envisioned that they were telling subsequent generations of Congress how to do their job. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read the Constitution can see that it is intentionally vague. It provides a structure and is not an instruction manual

General welfare means Congress must do what it sees as best for the population. The founding fathers said "go out there and do what is best for your constituents"

If they don't, they are voted out of office and a new concept of what is best for the general welfare of the people is implemented

This concept has been working for 200 years and is fully supported by our courts

 

[bigrebnc1775]

can you cite anything in the constitution that backs up what i bolded at all?

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

I do not understand why the concept is so hard to grasp

The founding fathers never envisioned that they were telling subsequent generations of Congress how to do their job. Anyone who has actually taken the time to read the Constitution can see that it is intentionally vague. It provides a structure and is not an instruction manual

General welfare means Congress must do what it sees as best for the population. The founding fathers said "go out there and do what is best for your constituents"

If they don't, they are voted out of office and a new concept of what is best for the general welfare of the people is implemented

This concept has been working for 200 years and is fully supported by our courts

There was no concept of spending for the general welfare until the progressive's Wilson and FDR came along.

 

[Full-Auto]

Trying to use the views of those on the far far left to explain the views of those in the middle is not only off the mark, it's a bit stupid. It's like saying all conservatives think we should get rid of the government completely.

What so many of you seem to forget is that government is not this big boogeyman that created itself and is now the enemy of all hard working people. Government is the people deciding what should be done in a collective effort for the better of everyone. That in no way means that the government should run or control everything or that it should put such constraints on business as to make doing business impossible. However, when the people support things such as certain environmental standards, then it is the government's job to ensure that those standards are upheld, even if it becomes a small thorn in the side of business. Bottom line is that the people decide what and what not government will do for all of us.

can you cite anything in the constitution that backs up what i bolded at all?

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

Then you can explain once and for all the differences or in this case the meanings of PROMOTE AND PROVIDE.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

can you cite anything in the constitution that backs up what i bolded at all?

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

Then you can explain once and for all the differences or in this case the meanings of PROMOTE AND PROVIDE.

Thats the one word that always shoots them in the foot
PROMOTE

PROMOTE does not mean PROVIDE

 

[Steelplate]

To answer the original question... we don't. But because of the way our government works... there are checks and balances. There will never be a totalitarian state in our country. That's Rush and Savage talking. We have free elections that can reverse the course of anything that doesn't work.

Unless, you subscribe to the stupid idea that Money=Speech. Then the only people doing the talking are people with money... hence, the problem we have now.

 

[Full-Auto]

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

Then you can explain once and for all the differences or in this case the meanings of PROMOTE AND PROVIDE.

Thats the one word that always shoots them in the foot
PROMOTE

PROMOTE does not mean PROVIDE

Thats been a conversation ender for years.

Most of the time the left gets extremely butt hurt forcing them to use proper definitions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then you can explain once and for all the differences or in this case the meanings of PROMOTE AND PROVIDE.

Thats the one word that always shoots them in the foot
PROMOTE

PROMOTE does not mean PROVIDE

Thats been a conversation ender for years.

Most of the time the left gets extremely butt hurt forcing them to use proper definitions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was no concept of spending for the general welfare until the progressive's Wilson and FDR came along.

Wrong again.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that Congress has implied, un-enumerated authority to enact legislation deemed ‘necessary and proper’ to address the Nation’s issues.

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the Court ruled that Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, to establish consistent, comprehensive regulatory policy, and that laws passed by Congress are supreme, trumping state and local measures.

As you can see these Constitutional doctrines were reaffirmed almost 100 years before Wilson and ‘progressives.’

You’d be well advised to stop getting your history lessons from the likes of Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg and actually do research on your own.

 

[Steelplate]

It falls under spending for the general welfare. You can argue it, but it has proven the test of time.

Then you can explain once and for all the differences or in this case the meanings of PROMOTE AND PROVIDE.

Thats the one word that always shoots them in the foot
PROMOTE

PROMOTE does not mean PROVIDE

What if promotion doesn't work because of very wealthy Corporations and individuals have the power over government's attempts at promoting?