- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Given his record to date it seems reasonable to do so.I blame Obama:fly:
Given his record to date it seems reasonable to do so.I blame Obama:fly:
Good point. If liberals were smart they would be conservatives.
I don't think it is necessarily loyalty to Obama, as much as it is a complete buy in to what Progressive/Socialistic ideals offer the youth by an education system that is replete with '60s era rejects that wanted nothing better than to end American exceptionalism, and capitalism as a system. They must be called out now, for their intentional attempt to destroy this country, and exposed for the liars they are.
j-mac
Total jobs mean **** to those that get them and today Obama keeps reducing the labor force by creating dispair and watching people drop out of the labor force. reduce that force far enough and the percentage change will look great.
Most people that understand history, personal responsibility, and the true role of Govt. will indeed vote for the lesser of two evils, Perry if he is the nominee
The problem is you have no idea whether or not those jobs would have been eliminated as the states weren't given the opportunity to solve their own problem. Show me where those jobs are calculated by an unbiased source?
Any idea why there is such loyalty to Obama and the liberal ideology in the face of total and complete failure of the stimulus and Obamanomics
If conservatives were smart they'd vote libertarian. See what I did there?
When was the last time you were in school?
This is tiring. I rreally must save this and then justcopy/paste when it comes up.That's a strawman. First prove this ...
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
... is not one of those enumerated powers.
Then prove spending is limited to only those enumerated powers following that one. And before you start posting Madison, expect posts on Hamilton.
If it's semicolons you want, that section's full of 'em. There's a semicolon following each enumerated power, including the one about providing for the general welfare of the nation. So unless it's your misguided contention that each enumerated power is limited to the ones following each one them respectively, you might want to rethink that.Note the semi colon use here denoting that the following list of items lays out the prior statement of taxation for the general welfare....In other words the general welfare was listed as those powers written.
j-mac
Why is it smart in a global society to weaken yourself through isolationism, all to advocate the legalization of drugs?
Why is that relevant? I had two kids in the public system, the most recent graduated last year. My daughter is now in collage. I am familiar with those who infest our education system.
Proving once again you don't know what libertarianism is.
. They prefer the old days when they could hold their county convention in a phone booth and some people thought they did not like meat. Today, we know them very very well thanks to their adoption of internet message boards as a main recruiting and proselytizing tool."you know libertariansim too well"
If that were the case, it wouldn't have listed general welfare. If you were right, the government wouldn't be allowed to pay for an air force, since that is not specifically enumerated, but does fall within the "common defence" clause.This is tiring. I rreally must save this and then justcopy/paste when it comes up.
The "common defense/general welfare clause" gives the power to tax so that there is money to spend, and the power to spend that money.
All monies must be appropriated before they can be spent. The "common denese/general welfare clause" gives no power to appropriate money - that power is found in the 16 clauses that follow.
Disagree? Please explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.
How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?If that were the case, it wouldn't have listed general welfare/
Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military... This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.If you were right, the government wouldn't be allowed to pay for an air force...
Sure. You did the same thing I did. I love throw-away lines. They are fun, easy to use and inexpensive.If conservatives were smart they'd vote libertarian. See what I did there?
How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?
Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military... This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.
:shrug:
-And- you did not explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.
Thus, your response receives a solid F+
I've already pointed out how it's true by using the air force as an example.How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?
Which according to your nonsense, would make it unconstitutional for the Congress to fund.Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military...
Too funny. Ok, you go ahead and argue the air force is unconstitutional. :roll: Hey, maybe you can impeach Obama over that! :lol:This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.
Otay, like Conservative, you're on record as not liking my asnwer.-And- you did not explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.
Thus, your response receives a solid F+
If it's semicolons you want, that section's full of 'em. There's a semicolon following each enumerated power, including the one about providing for the general welfare of the nation. So unless it's your misguided contention that each enumerated power is limited to the ones following each one them respectively, you might want to rethink that.
A semicolon is used break up sentences; stronger than a comma; weaker than a period.Please tell me what a semi colon denotes? See I think you are intentionally misinterpreting the Constitution by taking the opening declarative statement, dropping off the enumerated clauses that they intended as the "General Welfare" of the nation, and trying to use a broad scope of General Welfare to be so ambiguous as to encompass anything, any program, any spending you want to do in an ever increasing government....
That has actually been upheld in every Supreme Court decission which was faced with the issue.That is misguided.
Yes. The USAF is unconstitutional.I've already pointed out how it's true by using the air force as an example.
Which according to your nonsense, would make it unconstitutional for the Congress to fund.
Sorry, but debates aren't won by arguing the absurd, raising strawmen and by grading your opponent. ALL laws are Constsitutional until the U.S. Supreme Court deems otherwise. That's the daunting hurdle you face.Yes. The USAF is unconstitutional.
This does nothing to support your argument our counter mine.
:shrug:
Further, you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.
Sooo... you still have a solid F+
Fact of the matter is, you have failed to address the argument that counters yours. Nothing -I- can to do change that.Sorry, but debates aren't won by arguing the absurd, raising strawmen and by grading your opponent.
YOU argued that the USAF is unconstitutional, put up as a red herring to avoind the issue put to you.the absurd: "The USAF is unconstitutional"
The absurdity of that speaks for itself.
This isn't a strawman as it speaks directly to the issue you present, that the power to spend monet to provide for the common defense and the general welfare inherently confers the power to do whatever is necessary to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.The strawman: "you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy"
Madson disagrees. Show, specifially, where the court explains how Hamilton's position is sound and Madison's is not.Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them,
Well, lets see:The grade: "you still have a solid F+"
Like the first one, this falls under the category of absurdity.
Umm, maybe you weren't paying attention, but not only did I address it, I pretty much clobbered it.Fact of the matter is, you have failed to address the argument that counters yours. Nothing -I- can to do change that.
:shrug:
To be clear, I maintain your position is wrong and it's constitutional for us to have an air force since that falls under the "common defense" clause.YOU argued that the USAF is unconstitutional, put up as a red herring to avoind the issue put to you.
I simply agreed with you; the fact that you offered this as a red herring remains.
Of course it's a strawman. You are taking Madison's position on this issue. I am taking Hamilton's position. The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Hamilton's position.This isn't a strawman as it speaks directly to the issue you present, that the power to spend monet to provide for the common defense and the general welfare inherently confers the power to do whatever is necessary to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
Yet that's not a fact. It's a strawman. U.S. v. Butler confirms this.The fact that Congresss had to be specifically given the power to raise armies and create the navy and would not have been able to do so absent that grant negates your argument, in toto.
Regrettably, in their siding with Hamilton and Story they said, "We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice."Madson disagrees. Show, specifially, where the court explains how Hamilton's position is sound and Madison's is not.
Maybe if you keep saying that over and over, someone will believe it.Well, lets see:
-You refuse to address the argument that counters yours with anthing other than a red herring
-You refuse to address a specific question regarding an issue absolutely necessary for your argument to be sound.
No one with any degree of intellectual honesty whatsoever would describe -that- as anything other than a failure on your part.
Did you notice not a single Conservative responded to your post?Given the fact that you're on the wrong side of about 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, I think you better give yourself an F-.
When did every conservative become a constitutional scholar, btw? :lol:
Did you notice not a single Conservative responded to your post?
You said you were done posting to me ... when are you going to display some character and keep your word?What does that question have to do with the thread topic? Obama has a terrible JAR because of the following
Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDPand 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americansin 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade ofthe U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President inU.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and wellover 50% disapproval ratings.
It is sad, but I do believe you actually believe this.Umm, maybe you weren't paying attention, but not only did I address it, I pretty much clobbered it
Wait, wait ... before you run away ... who do you think is the ultimate arbitrator of the Constitution?It is sad, but I do believe you actually believe this.
Thank you making it abundantly clear that I need not seriously consider anything you might post, nor waste any time in responding to it.