IGX

Stillwater wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8[/youtube]

Stillwater wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auBjug0P9ik[/youtube]

Batshit you're right, I'm not too worried about the Kochsuckers rising up against the 'gubmint.

They talk a big game, but when it comes down to it they really just a bunch of posturing blowhards.

Hymen Asshole wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

Says who?

Seriously, find me the provision in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist, or pretty much any other source you'd care to name, that says that the government has no place in ameliorating poverty and inequality.

I can wait.

Wrong question. The proper question is, "In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

^^ this ^^

I can wait

protobuilder wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

Says who?

Seriously, find me the provision in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist, or pretty much any other source you'd care to name, that says that the government has no place in ameliorating poverty and inequality.

I can wait.

Wrong question. The proper question is, "In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

^^ this ^^

I can wait

My hunch is, it stems from the general welfare clause, which is part of the taxing and spending clause giving Congress the power to ruin our lives I mean, tax everyone for our benefit.

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

Says who?

Seriously, find me the provision in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist, or pretty much any other source you'd care to name, that says that the government has no place in ameliorating poverty and inequality.

I can wait.

Wrong question. The proper question is, "In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Batboy2/75 wrote:
You are truly brain dead. A perfect example of our degenerate school system. Every document you mention is concerned with limiting and controlling the Federal Government

You must have studied under the illustrious Doctor Gimp Cleaner, Professor of Progressive Constitutional Interpretation. Remember, Professor Cleaner will dock you points for not mentioning it's only the 10th most important ammendment. Don't worry though, if you let him blow you, he'll give you extra credit.

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

"In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Art. 1 sec. 8.

general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause.

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

"In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Art. 1 sec. 8.

general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause.

LOL. As written, "General Welfare" did not mean Welfare checks.

By your interpretation, the Constitution gives unlimited power to the Federal Gov't. This may be acceptable to modern Leftists, but strays far from any historical basis.

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

"In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Art. 1 sec. 8.

general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause.

LOL. As written, "General Welfare" did not mean Welfare checks.

By your interpretation, the Constitution gives unlimited power to the Federal Gov't. This may be acceptable to modern Leftists, but strays far from any historical basis.

Where did I say unlimited?

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

"In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Art. 1 sec. 8.

general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause.

LOL. As written, "General Welfare" did not mean Welfare checks.

By your interpretation, the Constitution gives unlimited power to the Federal Gov't. This may be acceptable to modern Leftists, but strays far from any historical basis.

Where did I say unlimited?

You didn't say. That would badly weaken your argument.

By your logic, doesn't the Constitution grant the Fed Gov't the power to do anything in the name of the General Welfare?

Jon wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:
You are truly brain dead. A perfect example of our degenerate school system. Every document you mention is concerned with limiting and controlling the Federal Government

You must have studied under the illustrious Doctor Gimp Cleaner, Professor of Progressive Constitutional Interpretation. Remember, Professor Cleaner will dock you points for not mentioning it's only the 10th most important ammendment. Don't worry though, if you let him blow you, he'll give you extra credit.

wtf are you on about?

Part of the Constitution is about limiting the power of the federal government; an equally important part of the Constitution is about empowering the federal government to do things, because the Articles of Confederation were working out so well for us.

Parts of the Federalist (e.g., #10 and #14) are about the benefits of a large commercial republic with the power to get shit done.

The Indictment of the Dec. of Independence is largely about the King of England bossing the Parliament around -- not that Parliament shouldn't exist or have the power to get shit done.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this "10th most important amendment" bullshit. The Constitution and its amendments don't work like that. It's either constitutional or it isn't.

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

johno wrote:

Jon wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote: It's not the governments job to ameliorate poverty and inequality!

"In the Constitution's enumerated powers, where is the federal government authorized to ameliorate poverty?"

Art. 1 sec. 8.

general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause.

LOL. As written, "General Welfare" did not mean Welfare checks.

By your interpretation, the Constitution gives unlimited power to the Federal Gov't. This may be acceptable to modern Leftists, but strays far from any historical basis.

Where did I say unlimited?

You didn't say. That would badly weaken your argument.

By your logic, doesn't the Constitution grant the Fed Gov't the power to do anything in the name of the General Welfare?



*Please don't tell me you think "General Welfare" = welfare checks. Laughable.

Batboy2/75 wrote: The Declaration of Independence lists the unalienable rights of man, lists the various times the crown violated the colonialists rights, lists the numerous times the colonialist petitioned the crown to no avail and tells the King of England to go fuck his royal self. The fucking document not just implicitly lists the limits of government, but they explicitly list the unalienable rights that no government could take away from them.

He (King George)has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
...
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

However, that's all beside the point; The US Constitution is our governing document. The US Constitution is nothing but a "shall not do" and "can do" list for the federal Government. Your hair brained and wrong interpretation of the Constitution would place no limits on what the Federal Government could do to citizens.

Fucking cum dumster

@fit retard!

Jon wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote: The Declaration of Independence lists the unalienable rights of man, lists the various times the crown violated the colonialists rights, lists the numerous times the colonialist petitioned the crown to no avail and tells the King of England to go fuck his royal self. The fucking document not just implicitly lists the limits of government, but they explicitly list the unalienable rights that no government could take away from them.

Again, read the Indictment.

He (King George)has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
...
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

The gripe in the Dec. of Independence wasn't with a government's ability to make laws, it was with King George's usurpation of the legitimate powers of government.

However, that's all beside the point; The US Constitution is our governing document. The US Constitution is nothing but a "shall not do" and "can do" list for the federal Government. Your hair brained and wrong interpretation of the Constitution would place no limits on what the Federal Government could do to citizens.

mmph, not really. The articles of the constitution are a grant of power, often broad. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to limit that power in specific areas. If the grant of power in the articles wasn't broad, why draft the Bill of Rights after the Constitution passed? Nothing in the Constitution specifically states, for example, that the government has the power to abridge the freedoms of speech or religion, but the drafters of the Bill of Rights thought it a good idea to state specifically that they could not do so. The later amendments to the Constitution vary; some, like the 14th, are restrictions on government power; some, like the 16th, are expansions of government power. There's no principled way to say that everything in the Constitution cuts in one specific direction.

Fucking cum dumster

ok

@fit retard!

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Jon wrote:I feel like I'm talking to a small child.

Yes, of course they believed that the powers of government should be limited. You will find virtually no one who disagrees with that. The question is where the limitations lie. There are legitimate arguments to be made for drawing the lines in more than one place.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Jon wrote:I feel like I'm talking to a small child.

Yes, of course they believed that the powers of government should be limited. You will find virtually no one who disagrees with that. The question is where the limitations lie. There are legitimate arguments to be made for drawing the lines in more than one place.

Then what are the limits and what does the 10 Ammendment mean? Those lines are nowhere as broad as you'd like to pretend they are.

Jon wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Jon wrote:I feel like I'm talking to a small child.

Yes, of course they believed that the powers of government should be limited. You will find virtually no one who disagrees with that. The question is where the limitations lie. There are legitimate arguments to be made for drawing the lines in more than one place.

Then what are the limits and what does the 10 Ammendment mean? Those lines are nowhere as broad as you'd like to pretend they are.

In practice, the limits are what the Supreme Court says they are. And in practice, the 10th Amendment means that the federal government can't compel the states to enforce federal statutes.

The Constitution is not magical, it's not holy writ, it's a collection of words that can mean different things depending on who you ask. The language of the Constitution can support a very powerful federal government; it could equally well support a very limited federal government.

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

Hymen Asshole wrote:

baffled wrote: Sure thing. They're pretty much in line with most Tea Partiers and libertarians, as far as I can tell. Since I am a libertarian (probably something along the lines of a paleo-conservative, I guess, but these labels are pissing me off a bit at the moment), I guess that makes sense.

- Eliminate or drastically reduce the income tax, and wipe out all corporate taxes. If eliminating the income tax didn't fly (which it never would), a flat tax would work (Long shot, but maybe) for me.

I'm a state's rights kind of guy, so I could care less if particular states wanted to follow California's lead and fuck over businesses and the working class. Others wouldn't, and that's the way it ought to be.

The required cuts to the size and level of activity of the federal government would be a benefit, IMO.

- Eliminate or drastically reduce the federal minimum wage.

As a small business owner, I would love to hire unskilled workers to do the tasks I don't want to. As it stands now, I usually have to outsource these tasks, which makes my life more volatile than if I had an American working here on a full or even a part time basis.

It also behooves me to keep these people on board, by paying them more, as they become more skilled. My business would have a chance to grow in ways that only happen in periodic jumps now, and they would have a job they wouldn't otherwise have.

- Cut welfare and entitlements to the bone. I like the idea of a negative income tax with welfare programs being limited to the truly needy. No more EBT cards for cigarettes and energy drinks. I'm not entirely opposed to some sort of social safety net, but I think they should be handled at the state level, if at all.

Goes doubly for corporate welfare. No more too big to fail, bailouts or other such bullshit.

- National right to work.

- Get rid of the Fed.

There's more, and it's not exactly fleshed out, but that's off the top of my head.

The whole point would be that people would have to actually work or starve.

All good point, we think alike.

baffled wrote:

Hymen Asshole wrote:

baffled wrote: Sure thing. They're pretty much in line with most Tea Partiers and libertarians, as far as I can tell. Since I am a libertarian (probably something along the lines of a paleo-conservative, I guess, but these labels are pissing me off a bit at the moment), I guess that makes sense.

- Eliminate or drastically reduce the income tax, and wipe out all corporate taxes. If eliminating the income tax didn't fly (which it never would), a flat tax would work (Long shot, but maybe) for me.

I'm a state's rights kind of guy, so I could care less if particular states wanted to follow California's lead and fuck over businesses and the working class. Others wouldn't, and that's the way it ought to be.

The required cuts to the size and level of activity of the federal government would be a benefit, IMO.

- Eliminate or drastically reduce the federal minimum wage.

As a small business owner, I would love to hire unskilled workers to do the tasks I don't want to. As it stands now, I usually have to outsource these tasks, which makes my life more volatile than if I had an American working here on a full or even a part time basis.

It also behooves me to keep these people on board, by paying them more, as they become more skilled. My business would have a chance to grow in ways that only happen in periodic jumps now, and they would have a job they wouldn't otherwise have.

- Cut welfare and entitlements to the bone. I like the idea of a negative income tax with welfare programs being limited to the truly needy. No more EBT cards for cigarettes and energy drinks. I'm not entirely opposed to some sort of social safety net, but I think they should be handled at the state level, if at all.

Goes doubly for corporate welfare. No more too big to fail, bailouts or other such bullshit.

- National right to work.

- Get rid of the Fed.

There's more, and it's not exactly fleshed out, but that's off the top of my head.

The whole point would be that people would have to actually work or starve.

All good point, we think alike.

Right on. When I look back at this, most of it could be distilled to: keep it with the states. States are more than capable of figuring their own shit out if that's what they want to do, and the Feds don't have the authority to meddle as much as they do anyway. Well, they're not supposed to, which is what BB and our new friend jonboy are arguing about, I think.

I firmly believe that without so much meddling by the feds, states like California wouldn't be so bat shit crazy.

I really don't like living here anymore.

Hymen Asshole wrote:Baff, plenty of room in Texas if you ever think about getting the fuck out of there. I left thirteen years ago and never looked back.