• 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!

Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

You cannot be serious...

I mean, I have seen blind fealty to the Supreme Court, but this takes the cake.

Since when has the Court become the superior branch of government?

I'll state it one last time for you silly Conservatives.

You preach and advocate that using the amendment process should be the only way to expand the power of government.

Then feel free to use it to pass a Constitutional Amendment restricting the power of the federal government.

Why is it so hard to practice what you preach?
 
I'll state it one last time for you silly Conservatives.

You preach and advocate that using the amendment process should be the only way to expand the power of government.

Then feel free to use it to pass a Constitutional Amendment restricting the power of the federal government.

Why is it so hard to practice what you preach?

This is laughable. You pervert the Constitution, then cite it as a justification for your position. Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" is?
 
You don't have a very good grasp of American history do you?

Simply incredible. The irony is totally lost upon you...

Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program.

Show us the specific quote to which you are referring so that we may discuss it accordingly.
 
You don't have a very good grasp of American history do you? The government gave away virtually free land to anyone willing to settle it. Does that constitute an entitlement program? Government resources being distributed to the poor? Relief programs and poor houses were also very common.

Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program.

Show us where the government gave government land to the citizens. I'm gonna live this.

I recall American settling land that was there for the taking from the indians, but don't recall any massive land give away by our early government.

Post your sources, please! Can't wait!
 
This is laughable. You pervert the Constitution, then cite it as a justification for your position. Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" is?

I'm not the one preaching strict adherence to a document written over 2 hundred years ago. Do you know what "hypocrisy" is? If you truly believe in the value of the Constitution, then stop bitching and get a Constitutional Amendment passed.

Simply incredible. The irony is totally lost upon you...

Show us the specific quote to which you are referring so that we may discuss it accordingly.

Haven't you ever read "Agrarian Justice"?

Thomas Paine's 'Agrarian Justice': The Rights of Individuals to Own Property Investigated
 
Show us where the government gave government land to the citizens. I'm gonna live this.

I recall American settling land that was there for the taking from the indians, but don't recall any massive land give away by our early government.

Post your sources, please! Can't wait!

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase]Louisiana Purchase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I'll state it one last time for you silly Conservatives.

You preach and advocate that using the amendment process should be the only way to expand the power of government.

Then feel free to use it to pass a Constitutional Amendment restricting the power of the federal government.

Why is it so hard to practice what you preach?

There is no need to pass such an amendment. Why do you think such an amendment is required when we already have the founding documents citing limited government as the vision, the first 10 amendments, the commerce clause, etc.?

Well?

Or are you parroting some lefty blogs seemingly clever gotcha question? Yeah, it's clear that you are.

No additional amendment is necessary. What is necessary is for the executive and legislative branches not to subordinate themselves to the judiciary. Why do you blindly support court decisions?

Like Kelo for example...the Constitution is very clear in the Takings Clause, yet, the Court found that government could take property not just for public use but for private use, too. No problem with that?
 
There is no need to pass such an amendment. Why do you think such an amendment is required when we already have the founding documents citing limited government as the vision, the first 10 amendments, the commerce clause, etc.?

Well?

Or are you parroting some lefty blogs seemingly clever gotcha question? Yeah, it's clear that you are.

No additional amendment is necessary. What is necessary is for the executive and legislative branches not to subordinate themselves to the judiciary. Why do you blindly support court decisions?

Like Kelo for example...the Constitution is very clear in the Takings Clause, yet, the Court found that government could take property not just for public use but for private use, too. No problem with that?

I'm happy you conservatives think this way. I'll enjoy health care reform while you guys bitch about how Unconstitutional it is, but do nothing about it.
 
What happened when the settlers took ownership of the land? Did they go to the mailbox every month and get their check, or did they use it to make a living?

Obviously they used the land they never paid for to make a living. I have no problem with that kind of welfare. In fact, TANIF embodies the same principles the founding fathers had in regards to no able bodied man being given a free ride. Only those who are truly deserving and in need of welfare should get it.
 
I'm not the one preaching strict adherence to a document written over 2 hundred years ago.

The Constitution is old. Is that your argument? Seriously!? Are you trying to make me laugh?

What difference does the age of the document make, anyway? Has human nature changed in the past 200 years? Has individual liberty, choice, and responsibility become bad in the past 200 years? Constitutionally restrained government and decentralized power structures have become outmoded in the past 200 years?

What, exactly, is your argument here, besides the Constitution is old?

Do you know what "hypocrisy" is? If you truly believe in the value of the Constitution, then stop bitching and get a Constitutional Amendment passed.

:confused:

What should the Amendment say!? "Adhere to the Constitution" or something similar?


I've read it, yes. I don't see where Thomas Paine advocates for a Federal income tax used to fund massive expansions of centralized authority and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy. Could you show me specifically where he supported such measures? I can't find it...:roll:
 
I'm happy you conservatives think this way. I'll enjoy health care reform while you guys bitch about how Unconstitutional it is, but do nothing about it.

2010 and 2012. You will hear the voice of real America.

:2wave:
 
Obviously they used the land they never paid for to make a living. I have no problem with that kind of welfare. In fact, TANIF embodies the same principles the founding fathers had in regards to no able bodied man being given a free ride. Only those who are truly deserving and in need of welfare should get it.


That's not how the current system works. Is it? The current system is your basic steal from the rich and give to the poor kinda set up. Which is why, "general welfare", in no way means that I should have to bust my ass, then have most of my money taken away to give to some buncha deadbeats that are too stupid, or too lazy to make it on their own.
 
What should the Amendment say!? "Adhere to the Constitution" or something similar?

How about defining what "general welfare" and "common defense" are suppose to mean so that they cannot be interpreted to mean anything else. It seems the court decided they mean something that you disagree with, so that means the next step in action is for you silly conservatives to pass a Constitutional amendment. Funny how you advocate for it, but don't seem to know how it works.

I've read it, yes. I don't see where Thomas Paine advocates for a Federal income tax used to fund massive expansions of centralized authority and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy. Could you show me specifically where he supported such measures? I can't find it...:roll:

Wow, you read all that into, "Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program."?
 
Last edited:
2010 and 2012. You will hear the voice of real America.

:2wave:

If the GOP wants to run on repeal of health care reform, then let them. They are already stepping away from doing so. All they are going to do is complain about how the health care reform endangers jobs and businesses in order to win seats and then they will do nothing. Heck, they'll probably expand upon it.
 
That's not how the current system works. Is it? The current system is your basic steal from the rich and give to the poor kinda set up. Which is why, "general welfare", in no way means that I should have to bust my ass, then have most of my money taken away to give to some buncha deadbeats that are too stupid, or too lazy to make it on their own.

It's funny, but when 95% of the income belongs to the top 10% of the country, that is kind of how it works out.
 
I'm happy you conservatives think this way. I'll enjoy health care reform while you guys bitch about how Unconstitutional it is, but do nothing about it.

Do nothing? What world do you live in? Thirteen states or more now joining to challenge the constitutionality of requiring citizens to purchase a private product/service.

Do you really have no problem with the fed govt requiring you to buy something?

Edit - so to keep the domestic autos in business, if Obama says we must buy a new vehicle from Ford or GM, you'd have no problem with that? Fits right in with the Founders vision?
 
Do nothing? What world do you live in? Thirteen states or more now joining to challenge the constitutionality of requiring citizens to purchase a private product/service.

Do you really have no problem with the fed govt requiring you to buy something?

The chances of your 13 states accomplishing anything in the courts are pretty much 0. It's a symbolic gesture. Your only chance is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Also, I'm kind of required to buy car insurance, and it has never killed me before.
 
Do nothing? What world do you live in? Thirteen states or more now joining to challenge the constitutionality of requiring citizens to purchase a private product/service.

Do you really have no problem with the fed govt requiring you to buy something?

Edit - so to keep the domestic autos in business, if Obama says we must buy a new vehicle from Ford or GM, you'd have no problem with that? Fits right in with the Founders vision?

While it's true that it's not the best thing to require people to buy health care insurance. Are you saying you'd rather not have it at all?
 
Okay, Chappy, we get it. You think the GOP is appropriately labeled as the "party of no". Your position is duly noted. Care to add something else, or are you just going to parrot your leftist rhetoric some more?

This thread is about “Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'” !!

I'm posting on the right thread, are you?

It's really simple! You want to talk about something else? Go make your own ****ing thread.
 
How about defining what "general welfare" and "common defense" are suppose to mean so that they cannot be interpreted to mean anything else. It seems the court decided they mean something that you disagree with, so that means the next step in action is for you silly conservatives to pass a Constitutional amendment. Funny how you advocate for it, but don't seem to know how it works.

We know what "general welfare" and "common defense" mean. They mean "general welfare" and "common defense". That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the legal construction of Congress's enumerated powers, i.e., do the general welfare/common defense clauses simply state a purpose to which the ensuing authorities shall be exercised, or does it confer upon the Congress an unlimited authority to act in what IT DEEMS to be the "general welfare" and the "common defense". The Founders were of the former opinion, statist apologists, like yourself, are of the latter opinion.

Wow, you read all that into, "Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program."?

You're trying to use Thomas Paine's support of a small welfare program (not an "entitlement" program) to justify your support of massive expansion of Federal government and authority. Being adamantly opposed to centralized authority, I doubt he would have agreed with you.
 
If the GOP wants to run on repeal of health care reform, then let them. They are already stepping away from doing so. All they are going to do is complain about how the health care reform endangers jobs and businesses in order to win seats and then they will do nothing. Heck, they'll probably expand upon it.

They don't have to repeal it, just defund it.
 
This thread is about “Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'” !!

I'm posting on the right thread, are you?

It's really simple! You want to talk about something else? Go make your own ****ing thread.

The discussion has evolved, madam. No one is interested in hearing you repeat yourself again and again. Perhaps you'd like to add something we haven't heard you say several times already?
 
While it's true that it's not the best thing to require people to buy health care insurance. Are you saying you'd rather not have it at all?

That is a separate issue. We're discussing the legal construction and philosophy of the Constitution, not the relative practicality of mandating health insurance.
 
They don't have to repeal it, just defund it.

Oh yeah, because that worked great when Bush tried it. The starving the beast method has yet to succeed so I don't know why conservatives keeping trying it.
 
Back
Top Bottom