Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 198
  1. #181  
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    That's general welfare, not provide a living for millions. OK? Another leech I presume.
    My point is that you were wrong to suggest that the US Constitution allows for nothing more than the promotion of the general Welfare.
    Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #182  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    21,294
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    My point is that you were wrong to suggest that the US Constitution allows for nothing more than the promotion of the general Welfare.
    It doesn't say "provide a living for leeches like Night Owl" does it. Read the Federalist Papers on the subject. Show me where general welfare means provide a living. Show me. I'll wait.
    Progressivism is a bottomless pit of absurdity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #183  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    That's general welfare, not provide a living for millions. OK? Another leech I presume. Read the Federalist papers asshole.
    We are a nation of Laws. The law allows for the Government to collect taxes for the purposes of General Welfare, among other things.

    So what is General Welfare?

    Well, what has the Supreme Court decided?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #184  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    We are a nation of Laws. The law allows for the Government to collect taxes for the purposes of General Welfare, among other things.

    So what is General Welfare?

    Well, what has the Supreme Court decided?
    The SCOTUS has gotten alot wrong.

    I guess you need to read what the founders believed General welfare meant. Hint: It's not how it's broadly defined today.

    If you're suggesting the current confiscatory tax rates and system are what is meant by that passage of collecting taxes....that borders on delusion.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #185  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    The SCOTUS has gotten alot wrong.
    lol yeah I thought about that right after posting that. they may not be the best standard because i do disagree with their decisions often, but their decision still stands.


    I guess you need to read what the founders believed General welfare meant. Hint: It's not how it's broadly defined today.

    If you're suggesting the current confiscatory tax rates and system are what is meant by that passage of collecting taxes....that borders on delusion.
    well I do think this "original intent" move is sort of unrealistic because the founders lived in an entirely different world, with an entirely different system, in an entirely different time than we do.

    Modern style corporations didn't exist back then. Large scale poverty wasn't really a societal problem as it was a local problem. Back then it was fairly easy for someone to obtain a plot of land and grow their own food.

    There's absolutely nothing in the founders' documents about Digital Copyright laws or contemporary threats of Terrorism or any issues that didn't exist back then. it's necessary for our system to evolve to the changing world.

    the world changes and any system that cannot adapt is destined to fail. the founders wrote addressing the problems of their time as well as the foreseeable problems that may arise in the future but they simply could not see the year 2010 nor any of the problems we've faced during it.

    I mean for the love of God they allowed Slavery back then, is it really best to blindly accept all of their positions as infallible?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #186  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    lol yeah I thought about that right after posting that. they may not be the best standard because i do disagree with their decisions often, but their decision still stands.

    well I do think this "original intent" move is sort of unrealistic because the founders lived in an entirely different world, with an entirely different system, in an entirely different time than we do.

    Modern style corporations didn't exist back then. Large scale poverty wasn't really a societal problem as it was a local problem. Back then it was fairly easy for someone to obtain a plot of land and grow their own food.

    There's absolutely nothing in the founders' documents about Digital Copyright laws or contemporary threats of Terrorism or any issues that didn't exist back then. it's necessary for our system to evolve to the changing world.

    the world changes and any system that cannot adapt is destined to fail. the founders wrote addressing the problems of their time as well as the foreseeable problems that may arise in the future but they simply could not see the year 2010 nor any of the problems we've faced during it.

    I mean for the love of God they allowed Slavery back then, is it really best to blindly accept all of their positions as infallible?
    I hear that cop out alot by left and right. That we live in different times. That men from the past can't possibly understand modern man. When you strip away all of those platitudes it's really just a matter of technology as the only difference between us and the past.

    One of my favorite sayings is there is nothing new under the sun. Human relations don't really change except by what our medium of communication happens to be or lack there of.

    And who said the founders were infallible? Just better critical thinkers than most people today. It was hypocrisy that continued slavery and ignoring the principles...not that the principles were unsound.

    Our modern society is stupid. There were more thinking men 250 years ago in Boston, Massachussets than there are in Washington D.C and the whole state of Virginia today.

    Oh and the Boston Tea party was a result of problems witha a mega corporation the East India Company, so I'm supremely confidant the founders would understand corporate danger.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #187  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,976
    I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country- Thomas Jefferson
    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance - Thomas Jefferson
    All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
    –John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention

    As another person put better than I could. "Does that sound like men ready to give corporations all legal rights of personhood and right to free and unfettered speech?"
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #188  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Fire departments enumerated in the constitution? LOL! Roads?! Ha!
    You claim to be a some sort of super genius, but then you contradict your own claim by posting ridiculous stuff like this. Fire Departments are established by the several states, or their counties, or municipalities, therefore their basis in the U.S. Constitution is the 10th Amendment. Interstate highways is one of the few proper applications of the Commerce Clause. If Arizona decides to pave a road a Utah, but not California and New Mexico, that situation may be of benefit to Arizona, but it doesn't keep trade between all states in "good working order", which is the 18th century definition of the word "regulate".

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    We don't give those individuals the option to opt out, do we?
    Maybe in your locality you don't have the option to opt out of EMS and fire services, but since such services are run locally and not in a "one size fits all" federal fashion, many people in certain areas have the option to opt out of such services. In San Tan Valley where I live, I have the option of paying an annual or monthly fee to purchase EMS & Fire coverage from the County. If I did not have the coverage I would be billed a premium if I need to have EMS/Fire come out. However, since I do have the coverage, I pay nothing if I need them to come out. This is how our fire department and ambulance service is funded, and it works great in my area.
    Last edited by malloc; 12-10-2010 at 05:25 PM.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #189  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    As another person put better than I could. "Does that sound like men ready to give corporations all legal rights of personhood and right to free and unfettered speech?"
    That's precisely the first ruling that came to mind when thinking about fudged up SCOTUS decisions
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #190  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    21,294
    I hear that cop out alot by left and right. That we live in different times.
    Actually, WeeWee is on to something here. People were more self reliant back then. People did for themselves. They didn't rely on government to feed and clothe them. They also lived within their means. Not people like wee wee and wilbur.
    Progressivism is a bottomless pit of absurdity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •