America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[JoeNormal]

Not many illegals in Alaska, but lots of hunters...hell, maybe there is some justice.
In my "spare" time I work a part-time job and run my very own small business.
But the question stands, why do libturds worship Hollyweirdos and the errant sports hero (all 1%-ers) but want to rip the heads off of the people who make jobs happen? Or are you so steeped in your make-believe world that you have no clue how to answer that question?

I don't give a crap about sports heroes. It's just not my thing. I love good movies and good music but I wouldn't walk across the street to see certain movie stars or hip hop guys. Why don't I care what they make? Because i can choose to patronize their work or not. I don't have that power with much of the corporate world. Corporations have become so intertwined that I have no idea who I'm supporting.

Now part B. I'm a design engineer who's created many patentable and profitable technologies in my career. I've developed some real contempt for the guys at the top who decide how to divide the spoils of my work while tossing me some small crumbs for my trouble.

If you are actually the one creating those patentable and profitable technologies, and other people are reaping the windfalls, then you either sold out your ip interests, or you never had a claim to that ip, because you created them on someone else's dime. So quit whining. You got paid for efforts either way

Spoken like real real corporate douchebag.

 

[Pho_King]

So tell me sunshine...what IS the general welfare clause and what does it entail? This ought to be good.

According to lefty logic, the general welfare clause encompasses every possible activity that lefties deem to be in your best interest.

Thank you for abdicating by rolling out the right's only defense... the polarized and the absurd.

Absurd is the most accurate term when describing the lefty view of federal powers.

 

[Listening]

The world is getting more complex each year. There are a lot of industries where you probably won't see a startup because the end product is more complicated than a startup could pull off. However, to address your specific question about new car companies, there's a company called Tesla the makes an electric sports car. That's bucking the odds in my opinion.

Talk to small business owners. Economics discussed the concept of "Barriers to Entry" and the Federal Government creates most of these these days.

Big business....You may be right (I don't necessarily want a start up pharma.....), but who do you think can start up companies like that (like an airline) ? Guys with big money. So, in essence, the federal government is making it so that the only people who can compete in business are those with lots of dollars already.

Just how the hell do you think the rich keep getting richer ? You think they do it on their own. Uncle Sammy is right there helping them. I can give you several specific examples if you like.

You don't need to convince me that corporate welfare exists in a major way. But given the resources of many of these mega-corporations, if the government weren't there to do their bidding, they'd be doing it themselves. At the height of their power, the East India Company had the largest military force in the world.

Is there a point to this ?

If so, I don't see it.

The idea is that the federal government clear the way (or level the playing field as much as possible).

That means they don't allow The East India Company to behave so corruptly.

When, in fact, East India Company likely had the blessings of the crown.

That is what government should be doing. Knocking down barriers to entry so that small businesses can keep clipping off profits from the EIC's and keep them honest.

 

[Listening]

So tell me sunshine...what IS the general welfare clause and what does it entail? This ought to be good.

According to lefty logic, the general welfare clause encompasses every possible activity that lefties deem to be in your best interest.

Thank you for abdicating by rolling out the right's only defense... the polarized and the absurd.

How can you commit the same error you accuse him of...while accusing him of it.

That this is the only defense is a polarized statement in and of itself.

You are killing me with facts....oh wait....I haven't seen one yet.

 

[JoeNormal]

Not many illegals in Alaska, but lots of hunters...hell, maybe there is some justice.
In my "spare" time I work a part-time job and run my very own small business.
But the question stands, why do libturds worship Hollyweirdos and the errant sports hero (all 1%-ers) but want to rip the heads off of the people who make jobs happen? Or are you so steeped in your make-believe world that you have no clue how to answer that question?

I don't give a crap about sports heroes. It's just not my thing. I love good movies and good music but I wouldn't walk across the street to see certain movie stars or hip hop guys. Why don't I care what they make? Because i can choose to patronize their work or not. I don't have that power with much of the corporate world. Corporations have become so intertwined that I have no idea who I'm supporting.

Now part B. I'm a design engineer who's created many patentable and profitable technologies in my career. I've developed some real contempt for the guys at the top who decide how to divide the spoils of my work while tossing me some small crumbs for my trouble.

Why don't you try developing your patentable and profitable technologies yourself? Otherwise, you sell yourself cheaply.

Most engineers are locked down pretty tightly. At some point, I might start doing my own thing again. It just takes a lot for a lone wolf to wear all the hats it takes to get a tech company off the ground.

 

[Pho_King]

I don't give a crap about sports heroes. It's just not my thing. I love good movies and good music but I wouldn't walk across the street to see certain movie stars or hip hop guys. Why don't I care what they make? Because i can choose to patronize their work or not. I don't have that power with much of the corporate world. Corporations have become so intertwined that I have no idea who I'm supporting.

Now part B. I'm a design engineer who's created many patentable and profitable technologies in my career. I've developed some real contempt for the guys at the top who decide how to divide the spoils of my work while tossing me some small crumbs for my trouble.

If you are actually the one creating those patentable and profitable technologies, and other people are reaping the windfalls, then you either sold out your ip interests, or you never had a claim to that ip, because you created them on someone else's dime. So quit whining. You got paid for efforts either way

Spoken like real real corporate douchebag.

Fuck off loser. When someone pays you to create something, that new thing created belongs to the one signing the paycheck. You can complain about the arrangements you enter all you want. That is typically what losers do. Or, you could discover your balls, find the funding, and put together for yourself all the things necessary to develop your technologies, things that previously were provided for you.

And then you would realize just how futile and juvenile your past whining was.

 

[SayMyName]

Talk to small business owners. Economics discussed the concept of "Barriers to Entry" and the Federal Government creates most of these these days.

Big business....You may be right (I don't necessarily want a start up pharma.....), but who do you think can start up companies like that (like an airline) ? Guys with big money. So, in essence, the federal government is making it so that the only people who can compete in business are those with lots of dollars already.

Just how the hell do you think the rich keep getting richer ? You think they do it on their own. Uncle Sammy is right there helping them. I can give you several specific examples if you like.

You don't need to convince me that corporate welfare exists in a major way. But given the resources of many of these mega-corporations, if the government weren't there to do their bidding, they'd be doing it themselves. At the height of their power, the East India Company had the largest military force in the world.

Is there a point to this ?

If so, I don't see it.


That is what government should be doing. Knocking down barriers to entry so that small businesses can keep clipping off profits from the EIC's and keep them honest.

Well put.

 

[Pho_King]

I don't give a crap about sports heroes. It's just not my thing. I love good movies and good music but I wouldn't walk across the street to see certain movie stars or hip hop guys. Why don't I care what they make? Because i can choose to patronize their work or not. I don't have that power with much of the corporate world. Corporations have become so intertwined that I have no idea who I'm supporting.

Now part B. I'm a design engineer who's created many patentable and profitable technologies in my career. I've developed some real contempt for the guys at the top who decide how to divide the spoils of my work while tossing me some small crumbs for my trouble.

Why don't you try developing your patentable and profitable technologies yourself? Otherwise, you sell yourself cheaply.

Most engineers are locked down pretty tightly. At some point, I might start doing my own thing again. It just takes a lot for a lone wolf to wear all the hats it takes to get a tech company off the ground.

That's why entrepreneurs are needed. Because they have balls and solutions where you have a gaping vagina and a boatload of excuses.

 

[Bfgrn]

So tell me sunshine...what IS the general welfare clause and what does it entail? This ought to be good.

You are asking now ????

I thought you knew.

James Madison in a letter writes:

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

*****************************

Just so you don't blow it again.

Here is what Madison wrote in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

which says that the General Welfare clause gives congress what it needs to accomplish the duties (or powers to perform duties) as called out in the constitution.

Like pulling together a military.

Help ?

You are either being disingenuous or obtuse.

There has been arguments over the general welfare clause since the birth of our Constitution by scholars, politicians, courts and citizens. You have only given one side. In reality, Alexander Hamilton view has prevailed. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Were you going to mention that little detail??

 

[JoeNormal]

Talk to small business owners. Economics discussed the concept of "Barriers to Entry" and the Federal Government creates most of these these days.

Big business....You may be right (I don't necessarily want a start up pharma.....), but who do you think can start up companies like that (like an airline) ? Guys with big money. So, in essence, the federal government is making it so that the only people who can compete in business are those with lots of dollars already.

Just how the hell do you think the rich keep getting richer ? You think they do it on their own. Uncle Sammy is right there helping them. I can give you several specific examples if you like.

You don't need to convince me that corporate welfare exists in a major way. But given the resources of many of these mega-corporations, if the government weren't there to do their bidding, they'd be doing it themselves. At the height of their power, the East India Company had the largest military force in the world.

Is there a point to this ?

If so, I don't see it.

The idea is that the federal government clear the way (or level the playing field as much as possible).

That means they don't allow The East India Company to behave so corruptly.

When, in fact, East India Company likely had the blessings of the crown.

That is what government should be doing. Knocking down barriers to entry so that small businesses can keep clipping off profits from the EIC's and keep them honest.

This might be point on which we both agree. However, if the barriers to which you refer mean that they don't have to adhere to environmental restrictions then maybe not.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have only posted facts.

That is quite a claim. You didn't post one fact showing that health care is in the USC.

If your argument is that health care is not spelled out in the Constitution, we agree.

Well, I guess I am not buried on this one. What happened ?



I think that I was quite clear in that.



The Constitution is about the rule of law.

It is not about morals. You don't address moral obligations in law...why would you want to when you don't want religion mentioned anywhere ?

You want to discuss Health Care as a moral question, I am good with that. As I stated above, I think we do have an issue with health care availability and I blame the GOP in part. But, in no way do I believe health care is a right.

Unless the premature death of thousands of Americans every year who don't have access to affordable health care is ok with you?

Please stop making me laugh.

I hope you are not referencing the asswipe Harvard study.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

And what is your point ?

That a right isn't a right unless it applies to everyone equally ? Which, if you apply it says there is no such thing as minority rights, womens rights, childrens rights or any special interest groups rights. But I digress (and I happen to agree).

**********************************

But I am back to my original position. You challenged me to a debate. I stated my basic premise (and I was going to take this to another thread and may still do so).

This was in counter your claim about dogma and how you were going to bury me with facts and figures. What you just stated above is simply dogma (and not something I totally disagree with...but dogma nonetheless). Facts and figures...you have provided none.

How does it feel ?

Here is your problem. I never said health care was in the Constitution. So there is no debate. Do I have to say it is in the Constitution to satisfy your debating rules?

 

[JoeNormal]

If you are actually the one creating those patentable and profitable technologies, and other people are reaping the windfalls, then you either sold out your ip interests, or you never had a claim to that ip, because you created them on someone else's dime. So quit whining. You got paid for efforts either way

Spoken like real real corporate douchebag.

Fuck off loser. When someone pays you to create something, that new thing created belongs to the one signing the paycheck. You can complain about the arrangements you enter all you want. That is typically what losers do. Or, you could discover your balls, find the funding, and put together for yourself all the things necessary to develop your technologies, things that previously were provided for you.

And then you would realize just how futile and juvenile your past whining was.

There's a wide latitude in what engineers are expected to do. Where I've exceeded expectations, I might expect to be reasonably rewarded for that initiative. That's where Fuckwads like you come in. I'll bet you're one of the guys whose career path has followed a succession of asses kissed.

 

[francoHFW]

The East India Co. was in the end a financial and humanitarian disaster. Lack of regulation, cronyism, and greed. A Pub/Tory deal...lol

 

[Pho_King]

Spoken like real real corporate douchebag.

Fuck off loser. When someone pays you to create something, that new thing created belongs to the one signing the paycheck. You can complain about the arrangements you enter all you want. That is typically what losers do. Or, you could discover your balls, find the funding, and put together for yourself all the things necessary to develop your technologies, things that previously were provided for you.

And then you would realize just how futile and juvenile your past whining was.

There's a wide latitude in what engineers are expected to do. Where I've exceeded expectations, I might expect to be reasonably rewarded for that initiative. That's where Fuckwads like you come in. I'll bet you're one of the guys whose career path has followed a succession of asses kissed.

Actually, I'm one of those you hate, the ones that start businesses. And I have had many employees just like you, that felt entitled to more than what we agreed they should be compensated.

Perhaps your reasonable reward was in keeping your job. Or perhaps your idea of exceeding expectations is one that is personal to you. I don't really giv a fuck how you have put yourself in a position of whining about not making what you think you are worth. I'm guessing your less of a stellar employee than you think. And in any event-you are an employee. Not an owner. You get a guaranteed paycheck. You want more than that? Do something more than whine about receiving a paycheck. Take the same risks your employer takes. Absorb the costs of starting up. Live with uncertainty for a while during times when your employees are taking home more than you. But for your own sake, man up and quit the fucking whining. You agreed to your arrangement. Honor your decisions.

 

[Steelplate]

So tell me sunshine...what IS the general welfare clause and what does it entail? This ought to be good.

You are asking now ????

I thought you knew.

James Madison in a letter writes:

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

*****************************

Just so you don't blow it again.

Here is what Madison wrote in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

which says that the General Welfare clause gives congress what it needs to accomplish the duties (or powers to perform duties) as called out in the constitution.

Like pulling together a military.

Help ?

No...the military is already in there. But you know that, don't you? The general welfare of the country is an add on that encompasses everything that promotes the strength of the country as a whole that is not otherwise covered, and as the other poster noted...Madison's view on the clause is not the only view, and in fact, is one that has been pretty much called bullshit. Just because you happen to agree with it does not mean you get to define it.

When you have people paying 12k off the top of their wages into an ever more expensive health care system...when 62% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, when just about all of our global competitors have a universal health care system, and the vast majority of our citizens are suffering because of it....yeah.....it's a General Welfare issue.

 

[initforme]

"Perhaps your reasonable reward was in keeping your job. Or perhaps your idea of exceeding expectations is one that is personal to you. I don't really giv a fuck how you have put yourself in a position of whining about not making what you think you are worth. I'm guessing your less of a stellar employee than you think. And in any event-you are an employee. Not an owner. You get a guaranteed paycheck. You want more than that? Do something more than whine about receiving a paycheck. Take the same risks your employer takes. Absorb the costs of starting up. Live with uncertainty for a while during times when your employees are taking home more than you. But for your own sake, man up and quit the fucking whining. You agreed to your arrangement. Honor your decisions. "

Heres what you do. You make yourself more valuable and get out of your job that you are in. Sign your contract, then simply dont show up for your current job. Tell your boss to stick it. Use those words. You owe your boss nothing. Zero. Not a notice of quitting. See ya bye. I've done it 3 times in my life and those 3 days were some of the most treasured days of my life. The look on the bosses face, priceless. But thats what they had coming. Try it. Its pure elation.

 

[Listening]

So tell me sunshine...what IS the general welfare clause and what does it entail? This ought to be good.

You are asking now ????

I thought you knew.

James Madison in a letter writes:

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

*****************************

Just so you don't blow it again.

Here is what Madison wrote in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

which says that the General Welfare clause gives congress what it needs to accomplish the duties (or powers to perform duties) as called out in the constitution.

Like pulling together a military.

Help ?

You are either being disingenuous or obtuse.

There has been arguments over the general welfare clause since the birth of our Constitution by scholars, politicians, courts and citizens. You have only given one side. In reality, Alexander Hamilton view has prevailed. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Were you going to mention that little detail??

That little detail is a discussion of the "evolution" or "bastardization" of the Constitution as it has been twisted to suite certain wants through the years.

There is no disputing that Madison and Co. were putting forth a limited government with a narrow and defined scope of activities (or maybe there is...I'll let you tell me).

Hamilton then turned around and started to push the limits of the Constitution (starting with the National Bank and moving on to other things). As I understand it, both Jefferson and Madison opposed him on this issue.

Hamilton won that fight and we got a national bank.

Those are the facts.

That changes nothing about Madisons views on the General Welfare clause. Nor does it alter the very arguments he put forth against a general interpretation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare hates not being in the mainstream.

Let's see if he spams again.

I know, son, that you hate being told you are not in the mainstream, but, sorry, you are not, and your silly politics only hurt the country.

Son, understand this: we mainstream Republicans don't care what you guys think. We will do what we know is best in saving the party from you and your comrades. That is simply it. That discussion is done.

Definately, definately mainstream. Definately mainstream. Mainstream, yeah, mainstream. Uh-oh! Time for Wapner!

Definately, definately mainstream. Mainsteam. Yeah. Of course I'm a very good driiiiiiver. Mainstream. Yeah. Mainstream. Uh-oh! Time for Wapner!

 

[Listening]

No...the military is already in there. But you know that, don't you? The general welfare of the country is an add on that encompasses everything that promotes the strength of the country as a whole that is not otherwise covered, and as the other poster noted...Madison's view on the clause is not the only view, and in fact, is one that has been pretty much called bullshit. Just because you happen to agree with it does not mean you get to define it.

Madison is considered the Father of The Constitution. His view carries some weight. Sorry to break it to you. That Hamilton turned out to be two faced really doesn't matter. That is the start of the discussion. There is no "definition" that is arbitrary here.

What is arbitrary is the way it has been treated.

Just because you need it to justify your desire for Federal Health Insurance does not that it actually exists.

When you have people paying 12k off the top of their wages into an ever more expensive health care system...when 62% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, when just about all of our global competitors have a universal health care system, and the vast majority of our citizens are suffering because of it....yeah.....it's a General Welfare issue.

Wishful thinking.

Get back to me when you have an argument, kid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, Listening drools.