• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Limited of course. I said checks and balances - that's the entire idea.
What limits does the Constitution, as written, place on the Federal government? Compare your (honest) answer with today's situation. We are no longer under the Constitution. We are under a lawless regime.
 
You really don't understand personal responsibility and a limited central govt. do you? You think it is the Federal Government's responsibility to handle social issues? It doesn't appear that you have any understanding as to the role of the Federal Govt. A good civics and history class would help you

Are you saying it's not their role because you say it's not? Because they are handling social issues... lots of them.
 
What limits does the Constitution, as written, place on the Federal government? Compare your (honest) answer with today's situation. We are no longer under the Constitution. We are under a lawless regime.

A lawless regime? Wow, I just checked out of my window but I don't see the riots starting yet. Please, keep me posted.
 
Yes, down the line they do. Walmart, for example, is a fortune 500 company. Want me to show you them getting in trouble using illegals?

How many Fortune 500 companies pad their profits by hiring illegal aliens?
Examiner ^ | January 5th, 2011 3 | Dave Gibson

Posted on 1/5/2011, 2:04:06 PM by moonshinner_09

The following is a short list of U.S. companies caught with illegal aliens in their employ:

How many Fortune 500 companies pad their profits by hiring illegal aliens?

Franchises? LOL. Cool beans.

Or, let me guess, they hired an outside company to do something for them, like clean thee bathrooms and the company they hired used illegals.

Still, make the CEO and char of the board of directors personally liable and make the penalty high and proportionate.
 
A lawless regime? Wow, I just checked out of my window but I don't see the riots starting yet. Please, keep me posted.
I suppose the rebellion, should it come, will be correctly identified as a lagging indicator. I believe this will begin with assassinations. Most won't make the news.
 
Are you saying it's not their role because you say it's not? Because they are handling social issues... lots of them.

Yes, that is exactly what Congress has decided to do, not what our Founders created. What politicians found is that they can buy votes by creating more dependence and Gruber said what most of the liberal elite believes. It really is too bad that people like you continue to defend a group of people who thinks the liberal base is stupid. When the liberal base votes like they do then they prove Gruber's statements correct
 
Franchises? LOL. Cool beans.

Or, let me guess, they hired an outside company to do something for them, like clean thee bathrooms and the company they hired used illegals.

Still, make the CEO and char of the board of directors personally liable and make the penalty high and proportionate.

Doesn't matter how they did it, they used low wage workers, and some were illegals. This is not good for working people.
 
"What limits does the Constitution, as written, place on the Federal government? Compare your (honest) answer with today's situation. We are no longer under the Constitution. We are under a lawless regime."
A lawless regime? Wow, I just checked out of my window but I don't see the riots starting yet. Please, keep me posted.
Because it is you I was reasonably certain you would not be able to answer honestly.
 
Yes, that is exactly what Congress has decided to do, not what our Founders created. What politicians found is that they can buy votes by creating more dependence and Gruber said what most of the liberal elite believes. It really is too bad that people like you continue to defend a group of people who thinks the liberal base is stupid. When the liberal base votes like they do then they prove Gruber's statements correct

You don't speak for the Founding Fathers and to pretend like you know where they would stand on social issues is kind of sad.
 
"Franchises? LOL. Cool beans.

Or, let me guess, they hired an outside company to do something for them, like clean the bathrooms and the company they hired used illegals.

Still, make the CEO and chair of the board of directors personally liable and make the penalty high and proportionate."
Doesn't matter how they did it, they used low wage workers, and some were illegals. This is not good for working people.
A franchise is a mom and pop operation.

What is wrong with using low wage workers?
 
You don't speak for the Founding Fathers and to pretend like you know where they would stand on social issues is kind of sad.

For those who have an interest there is quite a bit of material available to discern the intended nature of the Constitution. But one must actually want to seek the truth.
 
"What limits does the Constitution, as written, place on the Federal government? Compare your (honest) answer with today's situation. We are no longer under the Constitution. We are under a lawless regime."

Because it is you I was reasonably certain you would not be able to answer honestly.

I guess I had forgotten what it's like to deal with a prima donna. Sorry, your honor, let's discuss this "lawless regime" some more. LOL

Real quick, here are a few limitations to the federal government:

1) The federal government keeps itself in check via the three branches:
a) Executive
b) Legislative
c) Judicial

2) The states keep the federal government in check by literally comprising it.

3) The federal government is also kept in check by the Bill of Rights, which is legislation about things it can and cannot do. For instance, your ability to make crazy ramblings about it being total chaos is protected - your welcome. The Founding Fathers are nodding at you from Heaven, while simultaneous shaking a fist at you and Conservative for deciding their opinions on current issues.

Hopefully you already knew this ****, because it's from about 3rd grade.
 
For those who have an interest there is quite a bit of material available to discern the intended nature of the Constitution. But one must actually want to seek the truth.

Please, enlighten us on it. Show us how the Founding Fathers were against the idea of nationalized health care - a topic that couldn't have crossed their minds because it didn't exist yet.
 
"Franchises? LOL. Cool beans.

Or, let me guess, they hired an outside company to do something for them, like clean the bathrooms and the company they hired used illegals.

Still, make the CEO and chair of the board of directors personally liable and make the penalty high and proportionate."

A franchise is a mom and pop operation.

What is wrong with using low wage workers?

Often, but Walmart isn't. And they use mom and pops who use illegals, they likely know what they are doing. As do others.
 
Doesn't matter how they did it, they used low wage workers, and some were illegals. This is not good for working people.

Who are they? They contracted with another company and you blame Wal-Mart and other companies for that? You have nothing but keep reaching. Gruber nailed it
 
Who are they? They contracted with another company and you blame Wal-Mart and other companies for that? You have nothing but keep reaching. Gruber nailed it

The courts blamed Walmart. Not me.
 
I guess I had forgotten what it's like to deal with a prima donna. Sorry, your honor, let's discuss this "lawless regime" some more. LOL

Real quick, here are a few limitations to the federal government:

1) The federal government keeps itself in check via the three branches:
a) Executive
b) Legislative
c) Judicial

2) The states keep the federal government in check by literally comprising it.

3) The federal government is also kept in check by the Bill of Rights, which is legislation about things it can and cannot do. For instance, your ability to make crazy ramblings about it being total chaos is protected - your welcome. The Founding Fathers are nodding at you from Heaven, while simultaneous shaking a fist at you and Conservative for deciding their opinions on current issues.

Hopefully you already knew this ****, because it's from about 3rd grade.
When I was in the third grade much of this was still true. The states have not had a role since they lost their power over their senators.

I am surprised you failed to mention that the entire Constitution is written to limit the federal government. That too, is from the third grade.

Now do the second half of the assignment. You have given the textbook answer, partially. How does it compare to today?
 
Please, enlighten us on it. Show us how the Founding Fathers were against the idea of nationalized health care - a topic that couldn't have crossed their minds because it didn't exist yet.
It is very clear that the federal government was not granted the authority to legislate in the healthcare arena. They states may do so if they choose but the federal government has no Constitutional authority to act. They are tyrannical.

And, as you mentioned, this is grade school level stuff.
 
FYI, here are some sweet factoids about social welfare in America:

Social Welfare Developments in the 1700s - Social Welfare History Project

Before America even existed, Benjamin Franklin helped found the Pennsylvania Hospital:
The Pennsylvania Hospital is founded in 1751 by Dr. Thomas Bond and Benjamin Franklin “…to care for the sick-poor and insane who were wandering the streets of Philadelphia.”

It was free of charge, of course, funded by the donations of citizens from the great city of the state. That being said, probably the most famous founding father in history created a hospital that was free of charge. In fact, according to Penn Medicine:

Pennsylvania Hospital History: Historical Timeline - Benjamin Franklin
With Franklin's talent for popularizing an idea, funds were obtained from both the Pennsylvania legislature and private citizens in 1751

And more:
Benjamin Franklin | The Philanthropy Hall of Fame | The Philanthropy Roundtable
While raising funds for the Pennsylvania Hospital, Franklin approached the colonial legislature to propose that once the hospital had raised £2,000 in private contributions, the colonial government should contribute another £2,000 to the effort. “Every man’s donation would be doubled,” Franklin later wrote. “The subscriptions accordingly soon exceeded the requisite sum.”

Holy ****, what a socialist!!!

More from the Social Welfare site:

In 1789, the government decided to give aid to veterans:
The Federal Government accepts the responsibility of providing pensions to disabled veterans of the Revolutionary War.

More free money to people in need? Crazy!!!!!!!! And more:

In 1795, Thomas Mother****ing Paine thought socialism was pretty tight:
Thomas Paine published his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, in which he proposed a social welfare insurance program for the nations of Europe and potentially for the young American Republic.

Honestly, Conservative, you might want to move, because clearly the Founders just weren't what you thought. It's all been a lie!

Should I keep digging? Do we want to learn about other founding fathers, and the steps they took for the social well-being of our nation?
 
It is very clear that the federal government was not granted the authority to legislate in the healthcare arena. They states may do so if they choose but the federal government has no Constitutional authority to act. They are tyrannical.

And, as you mentioned, this is grade school level stuff.

Ah yes, it is very clear. Which is why they did, and the courts have (so far) allowed it. Maybe you should get a law degree and get appointed to the Supreme Court - they clearly need you.
 
In other words they were bullied by a Federal government whose politicians did not receive enough of a "take" from Walmart.

You have given an example of tyranny at work.

That's one interpretation, a rather generous one not supported by facts, but one. Here's another, they were guilty and wanted it settled.
 
When I was in the third grade much of this was still true. The states have not had a role since they lost their power over their senators.

I am surprised you failed to mention that the entire Constitution is written to limit the federal government. That too, is from the third grade.

Now do the second half of the assignment. You have given the textbook answer, partially. How does it compare to today?

All of those powers still exist - so I'd say it compares just fine. You can take the tinfoil hat off now.
 
Back
Top Bottom