Right, Left, Rep, Dem...........

[AZ Jim]

Let's quit quit talking party line and start thinking "what's good for the guy next door, your mom and dad. Doesn't that put a face one what is going on????

[Dr. Who]

I already think that way, but for some, it's either about the party politics or the constitution. Nothing else matters.

[Cletus]

Let's quit quit talking party line and start thinking "what's good for the guy next door, your mom and dad. Doesn't that put a face one what is going on????

How about "what the Constitution authorizes the government to do and what it doesn't"?

[Cletus]

I already think that way, but for some, it's either about the party politics or the constitution. Nothing else matters.

The Constitution DOES matter far more than you would like to permit. It is the foundation of who we are as a People.

[AZ Jim]

Are we as a people ready to let the hungry starve? The sick just die? We are America, aren't we better than that?

[Cletus]

Are we as a people ready to let the hungry starve? The sick just die? We are America, aren't we better than that?

You don't have to let them starve, Jim. Take them in. Feed them. Clothe them. Shelter them.

Just don't try to use the force of government to do it for you.

[Don]

The federal government has spent trillions to "help the deprived" over the last at least 60 years. What has the end result been? More and more deprived people! The federal government is the last place we should look if we want to do something for those in need.

[Dr. Who]

The Constitution DOES matter far more than you would like to permit. It is the foundation of who we are as a People.

The Constitution, at the end of the day, is an idea and an economic/political philosophy predicated in no small part on a reaction to living within a Monarchistic and authoritarian system over 200 years ago. So much has changed since then, including society and what they think is important. I don't think that people have fundamentally changed, but values have, at least in the western world. The Constitution is predicated on an escape from what could only be described today as a third world society, because in those days, the western world was pretty much like the third world today. Would you take advice from a third world nation on how to run a first world nation?

People, including many conservatives condemn the depredation of peoples in the third world, yet want to hold on to the letter of a Constitution that essentially derives its philosophy from third world ideas. In other words, it embraces the notion of survival of the fittest by relegating the rights of its citizens to the whimsy of states which are not charged with the preservation of rights under the Constitution. The existence of SCOTUS is primarily because of that separation, but requiring people to go through a lengthy and undoubtedly expensive litigious process to have their rights under the Constitution recognized is fundamentally the wrong way around.

[Cletus]

The Constitution, at the end of the day, is an idea and an economic/political philosophy predicated in no small part on a reaction to living within a Monarchistic and authoritarian system over 200 years ago.


No, it isn't. It is the supreme law of the land and the rule book for the operation of our government.

I have numerous bound copies of the constitution, most with tons of annotation. My favorite one however, is a simple paperback pamphlet with the letters RTDD in big, bold letters on the front

Read The Damned Directions.

[FindersKeepers]

You don't have to let them starve, Jim. Take them in. Feed them. Clothe them. Shelter them.

Just don't try to use the force of government to do it for you.

Exactly. Not only is personal charity more effective, the recipient feels more grateful and tries harder to "pay it back" or "pay it forward" when he's back on his feet. There is no such feeling when the government doles out charity -- there is only a feeling of dependence and powerlessness, which leads to a lack of self-worth.

The vast majority of people will help their neighbors out of a sense of community, but when the government takes money by force, it leaves the taxpayer feeling as if he's already done his share -- it destroys the sense of responsibility. The taxpayer becomes angry and turns away.

The recipients become angry too. All those young men in inner cities who want what all young men want -- to be free to live their own lives -- find themselves trapped in hoods without goals or a way out. They seek power in the only route available to them -- selling drugs and gang activity.

The democrats have created such a mess of what has always been human nature to assist privately.

[Peter1469]

Most government functions that can help people are best left at the local level.

Oh...! that word federalism has been invoked again!

[stjames1_53]

I already think that way, but for some, it's either about the party politics or the constitution. Nothing else matters.

The Constitution????????? Really??? It gave you and yours the right to post or say anything you want. It gave you the same Rights as everyone. It gave you all the Rights you need to survive in today's world.
You voted, right?
You own property , right?
You have protection against illegal search and seizures, right?
It gives you the Right to own firearms, right?
Speech, religion, freedom to travel???
any of these ring a bell?

[stjames1_53]

Are we as a people ready to let the hungry starve? The sick just die? We are America, aren't we better than that?
then stop the flow of illegals. Stop paying their way and start taking care of our own. let's dial back foreign aid
We already have enough starving and homeless.

[Green Arrow]

The Constitution????????? Really??? It gave you and yours the right to post or say anything you want. It gave you the same Rights as everyone. It gave you all the Rights you need to survive in today's world.
You voted, right?
You own property , right?
You have protection against illegal search and seizures, right?
It gives you the Right to own firearms, right?
Speech, religion, freedom to travel???
any of these ring a bell?

The constitution actually didn't give Dr. Who the right to vote, that had to be added long, long after.

[stjames1_53]

The constitution actually didn't give Dr. Who the right to vote, that had to be added long, long after.

she has the right to vote.................don't try to pack pedal this. Blacks were considered to be unprotected until the laws were passed. We are talking about today. the Constitution protects those Rights.
You made me think that you don't want the CONUS either.....tell us what Rights I have that you don't

[Green Arrow]

she has the right to vote.................don't try to pack pedal this. Blacks were considered to be unprotected until the laws were passed. We are talking about today. the Constitution protects those Rights.
You made me think that you don't want the CONUS either.....tell us what Rights I have that you don't

Those laws had to add to the constitution almost two hundred years later, those rights were not originally part of it.

[DGUtley]

The Constitution, at the end of the day, is an idea and an economic/political philosophy predicated in no small part on a reaction to living within a Monarchistic and authoritarian system over 200 years ago. So much has changed since then, including society and what they think is important. I don't think that people have fundamentally changed, but values have, at least in the western world. The Constitution is predicated on an escape from what could only be described today as a third world society, because in those days, the western world was pretty much like the third world today. Would you take advice from a third world nation on how to run a first world nation?.

Dr., I respectfully disagree. It is the contract of governance between the people and the central government -- a creation of the states. It restricts the ability of the central government to act and was designed to keep all but the defined powers with the states. This was seen as the best way to preserve individual liberty yet collectively join for certain limited purposes. Freedom and liberty. A creation of the state. I'm sorry, Mordor on the Potomac does not always know best. If we stayed truer to the Constitution, we'd have much less problems.

[stjames1_53]

Those laws had to add to the constitution almost two hundred years later, those rights were not originally part of it.

try to think this through. We're not talking about how and when. You're arguing like a muslim...Well, two hundred years ago...........
This ain't two hundred years ago. And actually, those freeing the slave laws and voting laws were changed within 125 years.
So, by deflecting, you still haven't made a point. The CONUS was designed to be added to or changed

[Scrounger]

You don't have to let them starve, Jim. Take them in. Feed them. Clothe them. Shelter them.

Just don't try to use the force of government to do it for you.

The flip side of that argument is that you can't use the power of government to prevent it.

[Green Arrow]

try to think this through. We're not talking about how and when. You're arguing like a muslim...Well, two hundred years ago...........
This ain't two hundred years ago. And actually, those freeing the slave laws and voting laws were changed within 125 years.
So, by deflecting, you still haven't made a point. The CONUS was designed to be added to or changed
So, original intent doesn't matter? Works for me.

Also, I lol'd at "arguing like a Muslim."

[stjames1_53]

So, original intent doesn't matter? Works for me.

Also, I lol'd at "arguing like a Muslim."

thought I'd give ya a chuckle...but seriously, the CONUS was designed to change. Wrongs have been righted. Nothing is perfect in it's inception. For example, gays have protected rights they didn't have 20 years ago. Transvestites are moving forward to protect their rights. That would have never happen during the Civil War. So the fact that the CONUS is constantly changing makes your argument moot.
The original intent was to adapt, but still define parameters and responsibility. Todays' political system and social structure resemble nothing like the founding days. Hell, 98% of Americans used to be proud of this nation. That's changed. We used to be a nation that pulled together in tough times. Now that has definitely changed. All of the laws written to the CONUS and all changes have led us to this point, where we are so divided, we can't decide between us when to flush the toilet.
We have become a nation ruled by emotions, not thought. No liberal ever stops to ask, "How much is that going to cost?" That's being conservative.

[Chris]

Let's quit quit talking party line and start thinking "what's good for the guy next door, your mom and dad. Doesn't that put a face one what is going on????

I don't think that's the issue, I think we all share pretty much the same values in terms of the good of all. The issue is how to achieve that. THat's what politics is about.

[Newpublius]

Exactly. Not only is personal charity more effective, the recipient feels more grateful and tries harder to "pay it back" or "pay it forward" when he's back on his feet. There is no such feeling when the government doles out charity -- there is only a feeling of dependence and powerlessness, which leads to a lack of self-worth.

The vast majority of people will help their neighbors out of a sense of community, but when the government takes money by force, it leaves the taxpayer feeling as if he's already done his share -- it destroys the sense of responsibility. The taxpayer becomes angry and turns away.

The recipients become angry too. All those young men in inner cities who want what all young men want -- to be free to live their own lives -- find themselves trapped in hoods without goals or a way out. They seek power in the only route available to them -- selling drugs and gang activity.

The democrats have created such a mess of what has always been human nature to assist privately.

Indeed and even a casual examination reveals what a sham the welfare state is. There is a fundamental difference between welfare for poor people and a cradle to grave welfare state. Currently the US has a poverty rate of approximately 15% +/-

If we had perfect income equality 15% of the population would get 15% of our income. Even if we conceded that 15% should get 15%, fair enough, poverty mitigation should be 15%.

But that's where one needs to ask, well then where and how does the government spending 41.6% of GDP.

The demands the governments are placing on the people at all levels is absolutely fucking insane.

[Scrounger]

thought I'd give ya a chuckle...but seriously, the CONUS was designed to change. Wrongs have been righted. Nothing is perfect in it's inception. For example, gays have protected rights they didn't have 20 years ago. Transvestites are moving forward to protect their rights. That would have never happen during the Civil War. So the fact that the CONUS is constantly changing makes your argument moot.
The original intent was to adapt, but still define parameters and responsibility. Todays' political system and social structure resemble nothing like the founding days. Hell, 98% of Americans used to be proud of this nation. That's changed. We used to be a nation that pulled together in tough times. Now that has definitely changed. All of the laws written to the CONUS and all changes have led us to this point, where we are so divided, we can't decide between us when to flush the toilet.
We have become a nation ruled by emotions, not thought. No liberal ever stops to ask, "How much is that going to cost?" That's being conservative.
So you favor the "living document" POV?

[Chris]

Indeed and even a casual examination reveals what a sham the welfare state is. There is a fundamental difference between welfare for poor people and a cradle to grave welfare state. Currently the US has a poverty rate of approximately 15% +/-

If we had perfect income equality 15% of the population would get 15% of our income. Even if we conceded that 15% should get 15%, fair enough, poverty mitigation should be 15%.

But that's where one needs to ask, well then where and how does the government spending 41.6% of GDP.

The demands the governments are placing on the people at all levels is absolutely fucking insane.


There's a difference between a safety net and a hammock (:yo2: Peter).

[Cletus]

The flip side of that argument is that you can't use the power of government to prevent it.

What does that even mean?

Why would someone want to use the power of government to prevent citizens from caring for less fortunate citizens?

[patrickt]

Let's quit quit talking party line and start thinking "what's good for the guy next door, your mom and dad. Doesn't that put a face one what is going on????

The problem with that, AZ, is that some look at the neighbor and seem to think if would be good for him to work hard and have half his pay taken from him. People look at their neighbor and think he should be able to pay for healthcare for deadbeats who don't want to work. And, what some want for mom and dad is being called euthanasia.

I've very suspicious of people who think they know what's good for me. It always seems to be something that's better for them.

When I look at all we've done for black people, the last thing I want is the government "helping" me.

[patrickt]

Are we as a people ready to let the hungry starve? The sick just die? We are America, aren't we better than that?
Who have you fed today, AZ? Share with us who you fed today? Who have you paid a hospital bill for in, oh, the last year? Who have you personally helped pay for college? I'm really eager to hear. I'm sure it will renew my faith in leftists.

[Tahuyaman]

I already think that way, but for some, it's either about the party politics or the constitution. Nothing else matters.


The restraints placed upon government by the US Constitition should be given much more respect. That should take priority over party loyalty.

[MisterVeritis]

Are we as a people ready to let the hungry starve? The sick just die? We are America, aren't we better than that?
Is someone preventing you from using your money as you wish, Jim?

[Tahuyaman]

thought I'd give ya a chuckle...but seriously, the CONUS was designed to change. Wrongs have been righted. Nothing is perfect in it's inception. For example, gays have protected rights they didn't have 20 years ago. Transvestites are moving forward to protect their rights. That would have never happen during the Civil War. So the fact that the CONUS is constantly changing makes your argument moot.
The original intent was to adapt, but still define parameters and responsibility. Todays' political system and social structure resemble nothing like the founding days. Hell, 98% of Americans used to be proud of this nation. That's changed. We used to be a nation that pulled together in tough times. Now that has definitely changed. All of the laws written to the CONUS and all changes have led us to this point, where we are so divided, we can't decide between us when to flush the toilet.
We have become a nation ruled by emotions, not thought. No liberal ever stops to ask, "How much is that going to cost?" That's being conservative.


Yes, the ability is there to amend the Constitution. But it was also made to be a difficult thing to accomplish. It is not to be amended based upon a politically correct whim of the moment.

[MisterVeritis]

Let's quit quit talking party line and start thinking "what's good for the guy next door, your mom and dad. Doesn't that put a face one what is going on????
Jim, in your world, does the guy next door lack a brain and a will? Are your mom and dad brain-dead automatons? Are you?

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution, at the end of the day, is an idea and an economic/political philosophy predicated in no small part on a reaction to living within a Monarchistic and authoritarian system over 200 years ago. So much has changed since then, including society and what they think is important. I don't think that people have fundamentally changed, but values have, at least in the western world. The Constitution is predicated on an escape from what could only be described today as a third world society, because in those days, the western world was pretty much like the third world today. Would you take advice from a third world nation on how to run a first world nation?

People, including many conservatives condemn the depredation of peoples in the third world, yet want to hold on to the letter of a Constitution that essentially derives its philosophy from third world ideas. In other words, it embraces the notion of survival of the fittest by relegating the rights of its citizens to the whimsy of states which are not charged with the preservation of rights under the Constitution. The existence of SCOTUS is primarily because of that separation, but requiring people to go through a lengthy and undoubtedly expensive litigious process to have their rights under the Constitution recognized is fundamentally the wrong way around.
You desire a centralized, authoritarian government. Why?

How can someone smart be so consistently wrong?

[Tahuyaman]

Is someone preventing you from using your money as you wish, Jim?

If government took less, he'd have more to use for feeding the hungry.

[MisterVeritis]

The constitution actually didn't give Dr. Who the right to vote, that had to be added long, long after.
The Constitution can be amended. And it was. Imagine that.

[MisterVeritis]

The flip side of that argument is that you can't use the power of government to prevent it.
Okay. Governments will starve people if there is power to be gained or kept.

[Tahuyaman]

So you favor the "living document" POV?


The constitution is not this " living and breathing " document leftists claim it to be. It's doesn't just automatically evolve and change with the ebbs and flows of society. This evolution is difficult to accomplish and reserved only for very specific purposes.

The constitution doesn't simply cast off previously passed amendments because modern society no longer values that amendment. It also doesn't add new amendments based on a societal whim or misinterpretations of the existing text.

[AZ Jim]

Jim, in your world, does the guy next door lack a brain and a will? Are your mom and dad brain-dead automatons? Are you?Listen, Both my folks have been gone for many many years, both a hell of a lot smarter than you and I'll thank you to keep my relatives out of your keyboard, you......@#$%$#!

[MisterVeritis]

Listen, Both my folks have been gone for many many years, both a hell of a lot smarter than you and I'll thank you to keep my relatives out of your keyboard, you......@#$%$#!
And yet, you are the one who believes government needs to think for them.

[Ravens Fan]

Jim, in your world, does the guy next door lack a brain and a will? Are your mom and dad brain-dead automatons? Are you?
@MisterVeritis 24hours in the the hole for over the top insults.

[patrickt]

Okay. Governments will starve people if there is power to be gained or kept.
Famines usually, throughout history, are caused by government. Some, like the Ukrainian starvation that killed millions were intentional and some were simply because of incompetence and corruption as in Venezuela today. Governments create famine they don't solve it.

[Dr. Who]

Dr., I respectfully disagree. It is the contract of governance between the people and the central government -- a creation of the states. It restricts the ability of the central government to act and was designed to keep all but the defined powers with the states. This was seen as the best way to preserve individual liberty yet collectively join for certain limited purposes. Freedom and liberty. A creation of the state. I'm sorry, Mordor on the Potomac does not always know best. If we stayed truer to the Constitution, we'd have much less problems.
Tell me, what inherent right does a state have to tell me who I can and cannot marry or that I must remain pregnant? Where does it derive that right? The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. However, the rights of the people are preserved under the Constitution, thus a power delegated to the federal government alone. The inalienability of the rights of man under the DoI is basically rule number 1. Not the Constitution nor any federal or state legislation is permitted to violate rule number 1.

[DGUtley]

Tell me, what inherent right does a state have to tell me who I can and cannot marry or that I must remain pregnant? Where does it derive that right? The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. However, the rights of the people are preserved under the Constitution, thus a power delegated to the federal government alone. The inalienability of the rights of man under the DoI is basically rule number 1. Not the Constitution nor any federal or state legislation is permitted to violate rule number 1.

First of all -- the rights of the people are preserved in the US Constitution vis-a-vis the Feds. States have their own constitutions to govern the relationship between the state's citizens and itself -- though the 14th Amendment changed that somewhat.

Marriage: the state defines the terms of the legal status of marriage. The Feds have no power in this respect. The state as the government has the legal governing right to define this. I was against the declaration of a right to marriage -- I was for an equal protection argument.

Abortion: The state has the legal duty to protect its citizens. Those in the pro-life movement believe an unborn child is a baby, a life, a creation or a Gift from God. We believe that the state has the legal obligation to protect that life.

[Dr. Who]

First of all -- the rights of the people are preserved in the US Constitution vis-a-vis the Feds. States have their own constitutions to govern the relationship between the state's citizens and itself -- though the 14th Amendment changed that somewhat.

Marriage: the state defines the terms of the legal status of marriage. The Feds have no power in this respect. The state as the government has the legal governing right to define this. I was against the declaration of a right to marriage -- I was for an equal protection argument.

Abortion: The state has the legal duty to protect its citizens. Those in the pro-life movement believe an unborn child is a baby, a life, a creation or a Gift from God. We believe that the state has the legal obligation to protect that life.

Agree marriage is either a religious ritual or a legal arrangement - neither the fed nor the state has any business in the former. As to the latter, equal protection under the law makes sense.

Abortion: One has to be born to be a citizen. The mother is a citizen. The spiritual beliefs of the denizens of a state should not be imposed on those who don't share those beliefs. The state administers law not faith. If the state has a right to impose spiritual or religious views on its taxpayers, then why shouldn't it create a state religion? Why shouldn't it arrest mothers who are not taking care of themselves while pregnant? Should a pregnant woman who drives carelessly, thereby running into a tree and causing a miscarriage, be charged with manslaughter? If she eats too much and creates a dangerous condition for the pregnancy, should she be arrested for endangering the life of her unborn child? If she continues to work at a stressful job and as a result, miscarries, is she guilty of criminal negligence? The law must be consistent, but if consistency means that the rights of women vanish the moment that they become pregnant because the loss of any pregnancy must therefore be the subject of a criminal investigation, then women have no rights.

[Safety]

Exactly. Not only is personal charity more effective, the recipient feels more grateful and tries harder to "pay it back" or "pay it forward" when he's back on his feet. There is no such feeling when the government doles out charity -- there is only a feeling of dependence and powerlessness, which leads to a lack of self-worth.

The vast majority of people will help their neighbors out of a sense of community, but when the government takes money by force, it leaves the taxpayer feeling as if he's already done his share -- it destroys the sense of responsibility. The taxpayer becomes angry and turns away.

The recipients become angry too. All those young men in inner cities who want what all young men want -- to be free to live their own lives -- find themselves trapped in hoods without goals or a way out. They seek power in the only route available to them -- selling drugs and gang activity.

The democrats have created such a mess of what has always been human nature to assist privately.

Okay let's say hypothetically you're able to sway public opinion and the government gets out of the business of welfare, and private charities are now responsible for helping people in time of need. Based strictly off of comments made here and other online comment sections towards minorities, what is one supposed to do when a charity will not help someone based upon an inherent trait that person has? Move? Tough it up buttercup?

You see, that's my issue I have with your (and not only you) suggestion, I'm not saying that they are not decent people in the world but there is a reason why we have hate crime laws and other laws on the books based upon historic interactions between the majority and minority in this country. It ranges from not wanting to rent housing to minorities to charging them a higher rate. That last part was not a hypothetical, it actually happened...to the extent that the POTUS was guilty of it.

[Chris]

The federal government has spent trillions to "help the deprived" over the last at least 60 years. What has the end result been? More and more deprived people! The federal government is the last place we should look if we want to do something for those in need.


Correct, the poverty rate since LBJ declared war on it, has virtually flattened, as compared to the dive it was taking beforehand.

https://i.snag.gy/ZLyfGw.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

In order to win the loyalty of a dependent class, one must first ensure that they maintain that dependent class.

[Safety]

Reality isn't just a type of TV programming...

[Chris]

Reality isn't just a type of TV programming...


Right, reality is found in the data. So either poverty progams keep people in poverty intentionally or unintentionally.

I think it's unintentional.

[DGUtley]

Abortion: One has to be born to be a citizen. The mother is a citizen. The spiritual beliefs of the denizens of a state should not be imposed on those who don't share those beliefs. The state administers law not faith.

I can be held liable in civil court for injuring an unborn child. It is a life that is compensable if it is damaged, as a matter of law in Ohio.


If the state has a right to impose spiritual or religious views on its taxpayers, then why shouldn't it create a state religion?

It is not a spiritual view, it is a scientific view. Life begins at conception. As to your latter point, the US Constitution prohibits it.


Why shouldn't it arrest mothers who are not taking care of themselves while pregnant?

They have and they do if it's malicious.


Should a pregnant woman who drives carelessly, thereby running into a tree and causing a miscarriage, be charged with manslaughter? If she eats too much and creates a dangerous condition for the pregnancy, should she be arrested for endangering the life of her unborn child? If she continues to work at a stressful job and as a result, miscarries, is she guilty of criminal negligence? The law must be consistent, but if consistency means that the rights of women vanish the moment that they become pregnant because the loss of any pregnancy must therefore be the subject of a criminal investigation, then women have no rights.
You speak of negligent misconduct and then ask for a criminal investigation. Those are two different things. I can be held civilly liable if I run into a pregnant woman and injure her unborn fetus. Why? Because it is a life. That unborn has the protection of the civil courts in that respect. Yet, you don't want to afford that child it's own protection? That's inconsistent.

By the way, thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Dave

[Scrounger]

The federal government has spent trillions to "help the deprived" over the last at least 60 years. What has the end result been? More and more deprived people! The federal government is the last place we should look if we want to do something for those in need.

The federal government - and most liberals have not learned the one thing that would have made all the difference in the world:

Feed a man a fish and you've fed him for the day. Teach a man how to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.

[Scrounger]

The constitution actually didn't give Dr. Who the right to vote, that had to be added long, long after.


1) There is no "right" to vote. It is a government created privilege

2) The Constitution grants NO Rights. It can guarantee them, but most Rights that the Constitution concerns itself with are unalienable Rights - Rights not given by government and above the law. For example, the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, not on citizens.

The Constitution has served us well for more than two centuries. The worst problems we have are the political propaganda prostitutes in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption trying to subvert the meaning of the Constitution. BTW, if those guys tell you the Constitution is outdated, you can always tell them the Bible is much older and still serving its adherents as good today as the day the first Bible came off the press.