Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But it is empowered to promote and provide for the general welfare of We the People.
No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...
The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'
the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie
So the Union is what then? It's made up of what?
OH my god you didn't mean it as a joke.Shelzin, go study libertarianism and communism, and come away realizing the role of cadres in "societies of equals" and in "societies of cadre-led proletariats."
*laughs*
Wait...
You did mean that as a joke right?
Well... ok then. So noted.
No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...
The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'
the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie
So the Union is what then? It's made up of what?
the states.... you know, those things that ratified the constitution and gave the power to the federal government
As stated, when specifically about the person, persons, citizen, or "the people", the constitution carefully said it.. and when about the union, A.K.A. the United States, it also carefully and specifically stated it
Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.
I know I know you will prove at sometime in the future..............
It's a joke, as is nearly every post from JokeStarkey
No.. of the UNITED STATES, I.E. the UNION...
The constitution specifically states when it is about the person, persons, citizen, or 'the people'
the union as a whole is not the same as every individual within the union... this is not a hard concept to understand.. that is unless you are a welfare entitlement junkie
So, in the original 13 states, under President George Washington, if one state suffered a horrific drought and famine........and needed the Federal help with food (like shipping food on US ships to them) would Washington had said "No, let them starve."
No, he wouldn't. He would've tried to send federal help if possible. Would he have violated the Constitution? Would he have been helping "The Union" or "The People" in that case?
that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...
And you have zero basis in your assumption
And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you
Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"
So the Union is what then? It's made up of what?
the states.... you know, those things that ratified the constitution and gave the power to the federal government
As stated, when specifically about the person, persons, citizen, or "the people", the constitution carefully said it.. and when about the union, A.K.A. the United States, it also carefully and specifically stated it
So if all the states benefit from shipping through a port in 1 state, should all the states chip in on the security and maintenance of that port? Or should that 1 state burden all the costs?
So, in the original 13 states, under President George Washington, if one state suffered a horrific drought and famine........and needed the Federal help with food (like shipping food on US ships to them) would Washington had said "No, let them starve."
No, he wouldn't. He would've tried to send federal help if possible. Would he have violated the Constitution? Would he have been helping "The Union" or "The People" in that case?
that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...
And you have zero basis in your assumption
And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you
Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"
Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
the states.... you know, those things that ratified the constitution and gave the power to the federal government
As stated, when specifically about the person, persons, citizen, or "the people", the constitution carefully said it.. and when about the union, A.K.A. the United States, it also carefully and specifically stated it
So if all the states benefit from shipping through a port in 1 state, should all the states chip in on the security and maintenance of that port? Or should that 1 state burden all the costs?
Where is the port located? The port of Baltimore, for example is maintained much by the state and the locality, but the security of the international commerce and the enforcement of the international commerce law is handled by the federal government, as charged within the constitution... The subsequent interstate commerce is then covered by the federal government
This is not rocket science, bucs
that is an individual need and not the responsibility of the federal government...
And you have zero basis in your assumption
And not as far back as Washington, but here is an interesting read for you
Davy Crocket and Farmer Bunce: "Not yours to give"
Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
Since when am I a member of the tea party??
your individual need for your situation is indeed your responsibility.. but your state can and probably does have an aid program for emergencies that span a broad part within their borders... maybe it does not, but that would be dictated within your state constitution... the federal government has no power granted to take care of your individual need.. now a federal building or military base, they are indeed responsible for and they probably have aid programs to the employees (as a benefit) of those things which is in their realm of responsibility
It's interesting that you bring that up. After Katrina, a lot of libertarians and uber-rightwingers were against helping Louisiana. And yet the main reason the city flooded was because the Mississippi river had been rerouted to the point that made flooding a certainty--all to accommodate shipping throughout the entire country.So the Union is what then? It's made up of what?
the states.... you know, those things that ratified the constitution and gave the power to the federal government
As stated, when specifically about the person, persons, citizen, or "the people", the constitution carefully said it.. and when about the union, A.K.A. the United States, it also carefully and specifically stated it
So if all the states benefit from shipping through a port in 1 state, should all the states chip in on the security and maintenance of that port? Or should that 1 state burden all the costs?
The far right translation of powers under the constitution is mucho babble, nothing else.
Ok. Thats fair enough.
I'm just trying to get a clear view of what the Tea Party truly believes.
So....in 1989, Hurricane Hugo hit my home city of Charleston. It was a Cat-5, devastated the city. People were homeless, hot, hungry....water was polluted. Crime was crazy.
The Tea Party response would be that Charlestonians were suffering from an "individual need", and that the US Government is forbidden by the Constitution from sending aid?
It's an important election, and important to clearly state each groups beliefs.
Since when am I a member of the tea party??
your individual need for your situation is indeed your responsibility.. but your state can and probably does have an aid program for emergencies that span a broad part within their borders... maybe it does not, but that would be dictated within your state constitution... the federal government has no power granted to take care of your individual need.. now a federal building or military base, they are indeed responsible for and they probably have aid programs to the employees (as a benefit) of those things which is in their realm of responsibility
So, to get it clear:
Feds can secure the shipping port for BMW in Charleston
Feds can secure and maintain the shipping roads for BMW from Chas to Atlanta
Feds can NOT provide aid to the same city that port is in when it is hit by a hurricane?
Surely that isn't what the GOP wants me to vote in support of.
It's interesting that you bring that up. After Katrina, a lot of libertarians and uber-rightwingers were against helping Louisiana. And yet the main reason the city flooded was because the Mississippi river had been rerouted to the point that made flooding a certainty--all to accommodate shipping throughout the entire country.the states.... you know, those things that ratified the constitution and gave the power to the federal government
As stated, when specifically about the person, persons, citizen, or "the people", the constitution carefully said it.. and when about the union, A.K.A. the United States, it also carefully and specifically stated it
So if all the states benefit from shipping through a port in 1 state, should all the states chip in on the security and maintenance of that port? Or should that 1 state burden all the costs?
The far right translation of powers under the constitution is mucho babble, nothing else.
I'm starting to see that.
This one is arguing that it is OK for the Feds to secure and maintain the shipping lanes for BMW, Microsoft, WalMart to move their for-profit materials through the Charleston Port, onto Charleston roads, and through South Carolina highways.
BUT, when Charleston is hammered by a hurricane, that same federal govt cannot provide aid.
So, the Constitution allows the Feds to aid BMW and WalMart, but not the City of Charleston, SC??????
It appears that you have become an actual conservative instead of a libertarian.It's interesting that you bring that up. After Katrina, a lot of libertarians and uber-rightwingers were against helping Louisiana. And yet the main reason the city flooded was because the Mississippi river had been rerouted to the point that made flooding a certainty--all to accommodate shipping throughout the entire country.So if all the states benefit from shipping through a port in 1 state, should all the states chip in on the security and maintenance of that port? Or should that 1 state burden all the costs?
In an application of their logic:
One would have to argue that, if a huge fire broke out in Honolulu, and the Honolulu Fire Dept was overwhelmed, that the firefighters of the US Navy at Pearl Harbor would be forbidden by the Constitution from assisting.
Thats their logic in action. How can one vote for that?
Since when am I a member of the tea party??
your individual need for your situation is indeed your responsibility.. but your state can and probably does have an aid program for emergencies that span a broad part within their borders... maybe it does not, but that would be dictated within your state constitution... the federal government has no power granted to take care of your individual need.. now a federal building or military base, they are indeed responsible for and they probably have aid programs to the employees (as a benefit) of those things which is in their realm of responsibility
So, to get it clear:
Feds can secure the shipping port for BMW in Charleston
Feds can secure and maintain the shipping roads for BMW from Chas to Atlanta
Feds can NOT provide aid to the same city that port is in when it is hit by a hurricane?
Surely that isn't what the GOP wants me to vote in support of.
To the city? No.. To fix its portion of the port where interstate or international commerce is taking place? Yes...
Whether you wish to support the government working within the confines of its founding document (the document that specifically grants and limits the powers of the federal government), is up to you.. it should not be a GOP or DEM issue, it is an issue of adherence to the law... and you are either for that, or against that.. and if you are against it, you are more than welcome to help in any way to use the amendment process to amend the constitution to change it
A catch-phrase I hear a lot is how government should be run "like a business". WHY????? I doubt many people would actually LIKE govt when it is "run like a business". Here is why:
When a business is struggling, they do a combination of things. Reducing pay for workers is one. Downsizing is another. The beloved private sector has surely shown us that, through emotionless layoffs and outsourcing. But hey, "its just business".
But they also do something else. Raise prices. As we've seen in gas, food, power, water, clothing...really anything we need, the price has gone up. But again, hey, its just business.
So if a government was run like a business, what would it look like? Well, a few thing:
1) Less government workers and programs. Downsizing and outsourcing (by saying let the private sector do it). If we look at supply/demand models that the biz world does, "demand" for government has skyrocketed in our society. People call 911 for damn near ANYTHING these days. Any problem at all, people of all parties say "Someone needs to DO SOMETHING!!". That someone, to most, means the government. THey demand the president, governor, sheriff, mayor, chief, or someone to do something. Keep us safe. Keep us healthy, fix the traffic problems, pave the roads, keep the illegals and terrorists out, keep the air and water clean, etc, etc, etc.
But do they wanna pay for it? REMEMBER: Supply and demand. If they aren't willing to pay for it....be ready to consume far less government, and STOP asking the govt to do as much. A realistic analysis by a fair minded person will inevitably acknowledge our society does have a high demand for government in practical terms if not ideological.
2) "Raise prices". The government...er, business....provides a serivce. Which as I've stated above, is a service that is in high demand right now in society. Well, the government's "price" is the tax rate. If the govt is in debt, they must "run it like a business" by downsizing, outsourcing, and raising prices. Sure, some say lower prices/taxes will bring in more customers and revenue. And that is often true. BUT if so, why have prices for food, water, power, gas, clothing spiked lately???
Seems if raising prices works for the private businesses who produce food, water, power, clothes, gas..................why would a government NOT run it like a business and raise their prices (taxes/fees) also?
So, can someone explain to me why, if the government is run like a business, would they not also raise their prices exactly the same way that JIF Peanut Butter, Exxon Oil, the local water and power companies, Cheerios cereal, Regal Cinemas, and any scores of numbers of other private sector companies have done??????????
(**To head it off early, I know the response of "But we can choose to buy a product, we dont choose to pay taxes" is coming. Answer: You choose which city to pay taxes in. And really....do any of us realistically have a choice but to buy power, water, food and gas? No, we dont. Those are staples of survival. That argument is voided.)
So....are we really ready for government to be run like a business? If you were a victim of a horrible crime, and the local police couldn't solve it because they cut costs and lost all their experienced detectives.......would you accept the neighboring city's PD saying "Sorry, we cant loan you one of our experienced detectives, you dont pay taxes here, our taxpayers dont pay to help you. Sorry, but it's just business."
Food for thought.
The far right translation of powers under the constitution is mucho babble, nothing else.
I'm starting to see that.
This one is arguing that it is OK for the Feds to secure and maintain the shipping lanes for BMW, Microsoft, WalMart to move their for-profit materials through the Charleston Port, onto Charleston roads, and through South Carolina highways.
BUT, when Charleston is hammered by a hurricane, that same federal govt cannot provide aid.
So, the Constitution allows the Feds to aid BMW and WalMart, but not the City of Charleston, SC??????
Did anyone say the fed was supposed to help WalMart or any company? No.. It was stated to have the fed be responsible only for the things within the scope of its constitutionally charged power
Nice try though.. try to refrain from lying about what was said
