And to think that left continues to demand MORE government

[william the wie]

The elitest New Class just want to be the hobnailed boots that smash the face of humanity forever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

Nobody has ever been forced into a gay marriage. It is a consensual agreement between adults.

That’s why the courts said the states had no grounds to deny it

By the courts taking away the choice of a state to respect gay marriage or not, that is the federal government forcing gay marriage on them.

When gay marriage was brought to a vote by the state citizens, most of them voted it down. Then either legislatures went against the will of the people or commie activist judges did. When it finally ended up at the Supreme Court, those states who survived the authoritarian figures were then force by the SC to accept gay marriage.

Marriage is not part of the federal government. That's why the founders never addressed the subject. It was to be between individuals and their religion and still should be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As Madison put it, the general welfare is limited to what the Constitution outlines.

Mind you this doesn't apply to state. A state can make any kind of social programs they deem necessary. Promoting and providing the general welfare is much different than funding the general welfare which is where we are at today. Our founders realized even back then that the federal government funding welfare would create dependency.

Some would argue that the reason our founders never funded the general welfare is because times were different. Well.......they could have provided us with government log cabins instead of HUD. They could have paid farmers to give people food who didn't have any. They could have made programs like Cash for Carriages.

Today however, the federal government provides food for people, housing for people, medical care for people, utilities for people, and even cell phones for people. Do you think this is what our founders had in mind?

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

You have no concept of what Socialism is......not the purpose of government

I agree, Socialism should not be part of our government.

 

[rightwinger]

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

Nobody has ever been forced into a gay marriage. It is a consensual agreement between adults.

That’s why the courts said the states had no grounds to deny it

By the courts taking away the choice of a state to respect gay marriage or not, that is the federal government forcing gay marriage on them.

When gay marriage was brought to a vote by the state citizens, most of them voted it down. Then either legislatures went against the will of the people or commie activist judges did. When it finally ended up at the Supreme Court, those states who survived the authoritarian figures were then force by the SC to accept gay marriage.

Marriage is not part of the federal government. That's why the founders never addressed the subject. It was to be between individuals and their religion and still should be.

Just like the states had the rights to invoke segregation and Jim Crow.
The 14th amendment requires equal treatment under the law. A State deciding one type of marriage is preferable to another is not equal

 

[rightwinger]

Subsequent legislation and court decisions ruled otherwise

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

You have no concept of what Socialism is......not the purpose of government

I agree, Socialism should not be part of our government.

We the People decide how much we want our government to do for us

A government implementing programs to help the people is not socialism

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

You have no concept of what Socialism is......not the purpose of government

I agree, Socialism should not be part of our government.

We the People decide how much we want our government to do for us

A government implementing programs to help the people is not socialism

No, we the people do not. The Constitution tells us what federal government is to do for us. If we the people want to change that, then we need to change the Constitution.

Our federal government was not created to help the people. Our federal government was created to govern.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't ask if liberal judged though it was right, I'm asking if you think the founders would have thought it proper.

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

Nobody has ever been forced into a gay marriage. It is a consensual agreement between adults.

That’s why the courts said the states had no grounds to deny it

By the courts taking away the choice of a state to respect gay marriage or not, that is the federal government forcing gay marriage on them.

When gay marriage was brought to a vote by the state citizens, most of them voted it down. Then either legislatures went against the will of the people or commie activist judges did. When it finally ended up at the Supreme Court, those states who survived the authoritarian figures were then force by the SC to accept gay marriage.

Marriage is not part of the federal government. That's why the founders never addressed the subject. It was to be between individuals and their religion and still should be.

Just like the states had the rights to invoke segregation and Jim Crow.
The 14th amendment requires equal treatment under the law. A State deciding one type of marriage is preferable to another is not equal

Okay, so what if father and daughter wish to marry? What right would a government have to make them unequal to a gay couple?

 

[Billy000]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

What liberals want is less government in defense spending and more government in social justice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

Repeated trips to the Moon on the X37 ain't cheap

 

[P@triot]

What liberals want is less government in defense spending and more government in social justice.

But here is the problem with that “want”: defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. “Social Justice” is an idiotic progressive construct (and false narrative) which is not.

What you really want is communism. Which you can literally have at the state and local level. But not at the federal level.

 

[rightwinger]

The founders believed that the states should provide the food and housing for the poor and homeless. Would they have approved the federal government assuming those tasks if the state governments had no money, It seems they did. America is still changing and we move closer to the Great Enlightenment which was part of our birth.

No, the left is trying to move us closer to Socialism.

If food, shelter and medical care were part of our federal governments responsibilities, it would be written in the Constitution. Of course a state can do anything they want provided it's not unconstitutional.

What our founders knew was that dependency creates power, so they wrote the Constitution to limit that power.

For instance when you were younger living at home with your parents, they had the power. They told you when you had to be home, where you had to park, what time you were allowed to play your music until and so forth. If you want to be in charge over those decisions, you move out of your parents house into your own.

If you work for somebody, they tell you what time you have to come in, how much time away from work you are allowed to have, what time you can leave to go home because you depend on that job to live on. If you want to make those decisions for yourself, you have to open up your own business or otherwise find a way to be self-supportive.

So our founders did not want the federal government to be able to control the people. It was counterproductive to why we started a country in the first place.

You have no concept of what Socialism is......not the purpose of government

I agree, Socialism should not be part of our government.

We the People decide how much we want our government to do for us

A government implementing programs to help the people is not socialism

No, we the people do not. The Constitution tells us what federal government is to do for us. If we the people want to change that, then we need to change the Constitution.

Our federal government was not created to help the people. Our federal government was created to govern.

Evidently not

Two centuries of court cases have given them the latitude to do the will of We the People

 

[rightwinger]

Unimaginable and inexcusable ineptitude by our federal government.

An audit conducted by Ernst & Young found that the agency’s accounting procedures are so flawed that there is no reliable way to track how it uses its $40 billion annual budget.

If a private organization was this inept, the left would take to the streets with violence. They would demand all kinds of “regulatory” reforms and legislation. And yet when it happens with tax payer dollars, all they do is shrug and insist that we need more government.

Major Pentagon agency can’t account for $800 million — but still may get a budget increase

What liberals want is less government in defense spending and more government in social justice.

Pretty much

 

[rightwinger]

Are you now claiming that every judge for the last 200 years has been a liberal?

The Supreme Court has been conservative for the last 40 years

It has? Is that why we have forced gay marriage and Commie Care still?

Nobody has ever been forced into a gay marriage. It is a consensual agreement between adults.

That’s why the courts said the states had no grounds to deny it

By the courts taking away the choice of a state to respect gay marriage or not, that is the federal government forcing gay marriage on them.

When gay marriage was brought to a vote by the state citizens, most of them voted it down. Then either legislatures went against the will of the people or commie activist judges did. When it finally ended up at the Supreme Court, those states who survived the authoritarian figures were then force by the SC to accept gay marriage.

Marriage is not part of the federal government. That's why the founders never addressed the subject. It was to be between individuals and their religion and still should be.

Just like the states had the rights to invoke segregation and Jim Crow.
The 14th amendment requires equal treatment under the law. A State deciding one type of marriage is preferable to another is not equal

Okay, so what if father and daughter wish to marry? What right would a government have to make them unequal to a gay couple?

Now you are going all goofy on me

Homosexual relationships are legal, incest is not

 

[Weatherman2020]

Look at all of the progressives disingenuously avoiding the issue by pretending that this only happens in the Department of Defense (because that perfectly suits their “weaken the U.S.” agenda). You can’t have it both ways, lefties.

The left whine about corporations though. At least the ones not spewing leftism on society.

Except corporations can't make you buy anything nor arrest you nor shoot you.

But big government can.

 

[rightwinger]

Look at all of the progressives disingenuously avoiding the issue by pretending that this only happens in the Department of Defense (because that perfectly suits their “weaken the U.S.” agenda). You can’t have it both ways, lefties.

The left whine about corporations though. At least the ones not spewing leftism on society.

Except corporations can't make you buy anything nor arrest you nor shoot you.

But big government can.

You missed out on the union struggles where corporations got government to shoot the strikers

 

[Weatherman2020]

Look at all of the progressives disingenuously avoiding the issue by pretending that this only happens in the Department of Defense (because that perfectly suits their “weaken the U.S.” agenda). You can’t have it both ways, lefties.

The left whine about corporations though. At least the ones not spewing leftism on society.

Except corporations can't make you buy anything nor arrest you nor shoot you.

But big government can.

You missed out on the union struggles where corporations got government to shoot the strikers

And if government were small and limited the effort would have been futile, Dufus

 

[P@triot]

Now you are going all goofy on me Homosexual relationships are legal, incest is not

What in the hell kind of idiotic “logic” is that?!? At one time - homosexual activity was illegal. Then you bat-shit crazy progressives legalized it. And you’ll do the same thing with incest and pedophilia before the end of the next decade.

So answer his question, wrongwinger. What right does the government have to make a brother and sister unequal to a homosexual couple?

 

[rightwinger]

Look at all of the progressives disingenuously avoiding the issue by pretending that this only happens in the Department of Defense (because that perfectly suits their “weaken the U.S.” agenda). You can’t have it both ways, lefties.

The left whine about corporations though. At least the ones not spewing leftism on society.

Except corporations can't make you buy anything nor arrest you nor shoot you.

But big government can.

You missed out on the union struggles where corporations got government to shoot the strikers

And if government were small and limited the effort would have been futile, Dufus

Government was in the hands of big money
Just like today

 

[P@triot]

My guess is we will be in WWIII very soon.

Absolutely 0 chance of that happening. Our nuclear arsenal, along with that of our allies, means that our enemies wouldn’t dare. Not Putin. Not Assad. Not even a maniac like Kim Jong Un.

In fact, Kim Jong Un has requested a meeting with the U.S. for the first time ever - citing his “fear” of President Trump to his allies.

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are going all goofy on me Homosexual relationships are legal, incest is not

What in the hell kind of idiotic “logic” is that?!? At one time - homosexual activity was illegal. Then you bat-shit crazy progressives legalized it. And you’ll do the same thing with incest and pedophilia before the end of the next decade.

So answer his question, wrongwinger. What right does the government have to make a brother and sister unequal to a homosexual couple?

Government can demonstrate damage to society from incestrial relationships
Couldn’t do it for homosexuality