Somebody can explain this DEI thing to me.

[otto105]

I am waiting for a serious answer not your crapola

Do you support funding Ukraine or not.

 

[eagle1462010]

It all comes down to …who should the Government
be helping?

The wealthy guy who doesn’t really need help
The poor guy struggling to feed his family

We know how Republicans will answer

Wrong headed since they began stealing from us to hand out to others.

Charity was never in the intent of the Constutution.

 

[otto105]

Wrong headed since they began stealing from us to hand out to others.

Charity was never in the intent of the Constutution.

So, it’s a no to provide for the common welfare then.

 

[dblack]

Because it seems more like an empty slogan by 90-year-old brainwashed Noam Chomsky with brain cancer or washed-up linguist/intellectual would support. It's clearly propaganda. It means nothing. (D) iversity? No, it's Conformity. (I)nclusion: except for the people that don't conform to their ideals, so they exclude them. (E) quity! What is even THAT? We are all the same. So, Shaquile O'Neal is just like Stephen Hawking...Whatever.

When society doesn't conform to their desires and expectations, liberals seek to "correct" it with government.

 

[Mac-7]

Do you support funding Ukraine or not.

I do support funding for ukraine

Do you?

 

[eagle1462010]

So, it’s a no to provide for the common welfare then.

A misused term. Founders never agreed to what we have become. As a matter if fact they warned us that it would end with corruption in our reps.

 

[Mac-7]

So, it’s a no to provide for the common welfare then.

The common welfare means everyone

Public works such as parks or roads would be an example of thst

Lib welfare rewards individuals through government payments

Thats very different

 

[dblack]

The common welfare means everyone

Public works such as parks or roads would be an example of thst

Lib welfare rewards individuals through government payments

Thats very different

Indeed. One of the first Constitutional "exploits". The general welfare clause is meant to require government spending to be for the benefit of the country as a whole. Not specific interests. Funny how it's used to justify the opposite.

 

[TheParser]

(1) I feel that DEI could be helpful if used in a constructive manner.

(2) Being 86, I can remember the 1950s when African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans were basically invisible on TV. (Except when they were represented by buffoonish characters.)

(3) It would be nice if the most qualified people were hired, regardless of their ethnicity.

(4) To hire somebody just to fill a quota, however, is wrong and could be disastrous.

 

[eagle1462010]

Jefferson on Taxes and the General Welfare (1791) | Online Library of Liberty

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

In 1791 Jefferson was very concerned that the creation of a National Bank would open the floodgates for increased spending by the Federal government. As a national bank was not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government in the constitution Jefferson was opposed to its formation, believing that “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson appears to make a distinction between the funding of the “Union” and “the general welfare”, where the former meant the operation of the federal government in carrying out its business, and the latter meant an undefined and potentially ever expanding sphere of action which was better left to the individual states or the people. He also raises the classical problem of “qui custodiet custodes” (who will guard our guardians) because with a national bank under its control Congress would then be in a position to both decide what it might do in the name of the general welfare and to give itself the financial means to carry this out, or as Jefferson put it, Congress would have the “power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong headed since they began stealing from us to hand out to others.

Charity was never in the intent of the Constutution.

Societies evolve…we take care of our own

Hate to tell ya…..but the Constitution is only 4 pages long.
There are a lot of things not included in the Constitution

 

[Nostra]

Because it seems more like an empty slogan by 90-year-old brainwashed Noam Chomsky with brain cancer or washed-up linguist/intellectual would support. It's clearly propaganda. It means nothing. (D) iversity? No, it's Conformity. (I)nclusion: except for the people that don't conform to their ideals, so they exclude them. (E) quity! What is even THAT? We are all the same. So, Shaquile O'Neal is just like Stephen Hawking...Whatever.

DEI is nothing more than the latest dumbassery the Dimwinger party has come up with to destroy America.

Its that simple.

 

[Curried Goats]

How about just hiring the most qualified people regardless of race, gender, sexuality, country of origin or religion?

Because that's a stupid argument and an entirely subjective notion. The idea that there is such thing as an objectively most qualified candidate for any position is silly.

It's 2024.

It is. Imagine better arguments my guy.

We've had both a Black president, a Black Vice President and a female Vice President. All the doors are open. Make good choices and the world is your oyster.

They are exceptions to the rule and look how a large portion of the Republican base responded to Obama. They believe he's an illegitimate president who was born in Kenya.

 

[Nostra]

Societies evolve…we take care of our own

Hate to tell ya…..but the Constitution is only 4 pages long.
There are a lot of things not included in the Constitution

None of which the Federal government should be doing, Simp.

 

[rightwinger]

Indeed. One of the first Constitutional "exploits". The general welfare clause is meant to require government spending to be for the benefit of the country as a whole. Not specific interests. Funny how it's used to justify the opposite.

No expenditure benefits every person equally

 

[eagle1462010]

Societies evolve…we take care of our own

Hate to tell ya…..but the Constitution is only 4 pages long.
There are a lot of things not included in the Constitution

The Federalist papers explain intent. It enumerated the Fed to prevent what we have today

 

[dblack]

No expenditure benefits every person equally

That's not the point, by you enjoy your strawman.

 

[rightwinger]

None of which the Federal government should be doing, Simp.

Fraid not Skippy

Congress has the power to do what is necessary for the benefit of We the People

Don’t like it……Take them to court and have the expenditure ruled unconstitutional

 

[rightwinger]

The Federalist papers explain intent. It enumerated the Fed to prevent what we have today

Federalist papers never made it into the Constitution
You can’t sue and claim something is Un-Federalist Papers

 

[Nostra]

Fraid not Skippy

Congress has the power to do what is necessary for the benefit of We the People

Don’t like it……Take them to court and have the expenditure ruled unconstitutional

Nope.

Get educated on the Constitution, troll.