The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)

[ubertuber]

DK, if the Constitution was intended to be the ONLY law of the land, it wouldn't grant Congress the power to make laws.

[dc_dux]

dk...the amendment process resulted in the 16th amendment that Paul and other libertarians somehow still consider unconstitutional and that serve as the foundation of their postions:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

and what Uber said as well (article I, section 8 - Congress shall have the power to.......)

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

DK, if the Constitution was intended to be the ONLY law of the land, it wouldn't grant Congress the power to make laws.

Pardon me, I meant SUPREME law of the land. got a bit excited and misspoke myself.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk...the amendment process resulted in the 16th amendment that Paul and other libertarians somehow still consider unconstitutional and that serve as the foundation of their postions:

The 16th is settled law and has been proven to be a legally binding amendment. The stupid difference of punctuation concerning the amendment ratification between the different states is petty bullshit. There are amendments that probably shouldn't have been made, the 16th included, but they are done and ratified, so they legally exist.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

and what Uber said as well (article I, section 8 - Congress shall have the power to.......)

yes, they have the power to tax, but not do anything that would violate the constitution nor violate the rights of the people.

[trickyy]

it seems ron paul would veto every bill as president

i do like his straightforward manner. he answers questions directly and is less likely to rattle off campaign talking points. this is probably a function of his low polling numbers.

it is amazing that he has raised more money than mccain in the second quarter ... and almost more than romney if romney had not loaned himself 9 million.

some ron paul video can be found here ...

http://12.170.145.161/search/basic.a...&image1=Submit

[jorgelito]

DC, thanks for the discussion. I think it's going to be an interesting election and that it is definitely not too early to start discussing the candidates and the issues. I think people like Ron Paul add some spice and color to the mix. I wonder if Nader will make an appearance too.

I live in Southern California where alot of people have been talking about Ron Paul lately (actually since the last debate, where I think he got alot of attention), and at least feel that Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what the year bears out. In the meantime, there are a bunch of other candidates to discuss too. I've been waiting for Elphaba to start a McCain thread. I would love to hear your and others take on Obama. I think he is a very interesting candidate with a lot of potential. The "uniter" thing is a delicate balance though. It could easily go the other way. I know alot of African American's are wary of him and are taking a wait and see approach. They just don't trust him yet nor see him as "one of us". Yet. We will see.

Powerclown, I disagree with you about libertarian ideology not caring about "the weaker members of society". At least maybe you and I have different interpretations on it perhaps. I interpret it to be a matter of choice. I don't think libertarians are against helping others, but rather it's more about the choice of choosing to help others, to be free from coercion or being compelled to do things they don't want to.

I am very generous and charitable, but I do not want someone else dictating to me who I can help.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Pardon me, I meant SUPREME law of the land. got a bit excited and misspoke myself.

I get that - I wasn't trying to nitpick on mistakes. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there is more to our government than what the Constitution says, though it does get trump status. Because the power to make laws is granted, and as Hamilton argued, the power to do things to carry those laws out is implied, there is a lot of stuff that has happened in the last 200 years that bears consideration.

Out of curiosity DK, are you of the opinion that Hamilton and the Federalists were already going too far? Of course, that's a whole other can of worms which could be a great thread, but your answer may help me understand your perspective.

[dc_dux]

trickky....just for the record, Paul did not raise more funds that McCain in the second quarter. He has more cash on hand, because McCain's campaign has been pissing his funds away with a bloated staff, over priced ads, etc:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

trickky....just for the record, Paul did not raise more funds that McCain in the second quarter. He has more cash on hand, because McCain's campaign has been pissing his funds away with a bloated staff, over priced ads, etc:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

...and hookers.

[dc_dux]

will.....just an old rumor spread by the despicable Karl Rove and the religious right in the 2000 primary campaign, along with charges of an illegitimate dark skinned daughter and a wife who was a drug addict. (best left to another thread)
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/03/1457251

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I am very generous and charitable, but I do not want someone else dictating to me who I can help.

Understood...I see it as an obligation and the price to pay for living in a civilized, advanced society. Any society enlightened enough to allow any of its citizens the opportunity to own their own piece of land free and clear, get an advanced education, bear arms independently, run ones own business as he sees fit, should also import a certain amount of responsibility to the others in that society. A large, co-op antfarm if you will.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I get that - I wasn't trying to nitpick on mistakes. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there is more to our government than what the Constitution says, though it does get trump status. Because the power to make laws is granted, and as Hamilton argued, the power to do things to carry those laws out is implied, there is a lot of stuff that has happened in the last 200 years that bears consideration.

Out of curiosity DK, are you of the opinion that Hamilton and the Federalists were already going too far? Of course, that's a whole other can of worms which could be a great thread, but your answer may help me understand your perspective.

As someone on here earlier said (I think it was here), Madison and his support for the 'sedition' laws was just the first of many examples of an overreaching federal government, not unlike exactly what Jefferson and the rest of the anti-federalists were afraid of.

Take a look at our history and you'll see example on top of example where the federal gov took more power where they weren't authorized, at least by the constitution. The years after the revolution were just the start. The civil war and the years after were a major power grab for the feds, in fact, the ONLY two good things that came out of the civil war happened to be the 13th and 14th amendments. It was a damn shame that the courts were still of the racist mindset and co-opted the one good thing to come out of the civil war and enact social engineering by judicial fiat. The FDR admin and the new deal tie with post civil war for the worst power grab by the feds.

It won't be much longer before states won't really need to elect legislative bodies anymore. Governers will be more like feudal lords than representatives of the people.

[dc_dux]

Now that Ron Paul's figures are reported, tt appears he raised as much in the second quarter as Joe Biden, a bit more than Sam Brownback and less than Chris Dodd.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

Are any of these guys really viable candidates?

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Now that Ron Paul's figures are reported, tt appears he raised as much in the second quarter as Joe Biden, a bit more than Sam Brownback and less than Chris Dodd.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/q2.asp?cycle=2008

Are any of these guys really viable candidates?

I think it's too soon to tell. We have to wait it out a bit to see how the "herd thins out".

I am actually pretty surprised at McCain's struggles. Also, I don't think money necessarily = a win. Perot, Forbes all had tons of money but didn't really get anywhere. I do think Bloomberg is interesting.

When the dust settles, we will have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican candidate. I am interested to see what independent or other party candidates turn up. Lieberman? Nader?

[Jenny Hatch]

Originally Posted by ziadel

Well, I've volunteered for the Ron Paul campaign. But, living where I am theres only so much assistance I can render locally. So I figured why not step onto TFProject and discuss him with some intelligent hip peeps


I'm not sure where to start, does anyone have any questions about him? I really dont wanna just start out by yelling he wants this and he wants that.

I have been a strong Romney supporter, but lately, I've just been feeling like I need to go whole hog for Paul. I found this video this morning:

Somebody asked Dr. Paul about Big Pharma, and he, in one minute just laid out the whole debate.

Dr. Paul just gets the WTO.

Mr. Romney had better start listening, or he may lose this supporter!

Jenny Hatch

Originally Posted by Telluride

I like Ron Paul. It's refreshing (and unusual) to see a politician who generally seems to care about freedom and the Constitution. He's the only one of the current Republican and Democrat candidates I will vote for, and I think he would make a great president.

He is also an obstetrician who understands the big pharma companies inside and out. If he had been available as a doctor, I may not have given birth to my last two babies at home.

Check out this video - his supporters are rabid constitutionalists and this one too, We Become Silent, he was and is a very important voice in exposing the Big Pharma Frauds and attempted takeover of the supplement industry.

Jenny Hatch

Originally Posted by trickyy

it seems ron paul would veto every bill as president

i do like his straightforward manner.

some ron paul video can be found here ...

http://12.170.145.161/search/basic.a...&image1=Submit

This one was my all time favorite: Showed up on You TUBE recently and it is blasting around the internet.....FREEDOM IS POPULAR!

Jenny Hatch

[samcol]

I've donated quite a bit of money (for me) to his campaign. First and only time I've donated to a politician.

What I really like about him is he gives off this aura of honesty which is backed up by his voting records. He says what he will do and does it. You may not like his policies, but it's hard to find politician's who are consistant on issues and strickly follow the rule of law.

[Jenny Hatch]

Originally Posted by samcol

I've donated quite a bit of money (for me) to his campaign. First and only time I've donated to a politician.

What I really like about him is he gives off this aura of honesty which is backed up by his voting records. He says what he will do and does it. You may not like his policies, but it's hard to find politician's who are consistant on issues and strickly follow the rule of law.

I like the fact that he left Congress, went home and worked a real job for years before throwing his hat back into the ring. He is not a career politician, and it shows in his ethics and clarity.

Jenny

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I think it's too soon to tell. We have to wait it out a bit to see how the "herd thins out".

I am actually pretty surprised at McCain's struggles. Also, I don't think money necessarily = a win. Perot, Forbes all had tons of money but didn't really get anywhere. I do think Bloomberg is interesting.

When the dust settles, we will have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican candidate. I am interested to see what independent or other party candidates turn up. Lieberman? Nader?

I agree about the "herd thinning out" but money and organization do count..thats just the way it is until we have true campaign reform.

As for Ron Paul, even with the recent visibility, he is still not even a blip on the radar. In fact, in two recent national polls (USA Today/Gallup and Fox), his numbers have gone down in the last month to less than 1% (its a whopping 2% in CNN, Newsweek and Cook polls):

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

I will take him more seriously as a candidate if he gets anywhere near double digits.....until then, he is just a novelty candidate.

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I will take him more seriously as a candidate if he gets anywhere near double digits.....until then, he is just a novelty candidate.

Theres a lot of speculation about why this is exactly

It could be because most of his supporters don't have landline telephones, and even those who do won't pick up the phone unless they recognize the number on the caller ID.

Why do you have to wait until he gets support from everyone else for you to support him? If his message speaks to you and you think he would be a positive leader, then why not support him?

[dc_dux]

ziadel...I am not withholding support for Ron Paul because of his miniscule polling numbers. I posted the polling numbers and his fund raising totals (same as Joe Biden) to show that he is not among the first tier candidates, despite all this talk about his having wide spread, cross-party support.

Other than his position on the war, I dont agree with his approach to government or any solutions that I have seen him propose to the problems we face as a nation....and I dont think he has the experience or leadership qualities to be president. IMO, a`mantra of "its not the government's role" does not demonstrate leadership.

I do agree with you on the problems with polling and the fact that many of his supporters might not show up in traditional polls...but that would account for a margin of error of a few percentage points at best....and would probably apply to Barak Obama as well, who also has many young, potential first-time voters. It also doesnt explain the drop to less than 1% in the last month in the USA Today and Fox polls.

This is not to demean the enthusiasm for his candidacy by you and others, but I just dont see any evidence of a groundswell of support for Paul.

[intecel]

The more I hear about Ron Paul, the more I like the guy.

Here's a great interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

This is not to demean the enthusiasm for his candidacy by you and others, but I just dont see any evidence of a groundswell of support for Paul.

I think the real evidence is just that a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for what (as I see it) is essentially a national referendum between "liberal" and "conservative" points of view.

Also, he's not just saying Goverment should stay out of it, he's referring to Federal Government, meaning California would be free to be California and Montana would be free to be Montana. If you don't like the way things are going where you're at, you can move.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ziadel

....he's not just saying Goverment should stay out of it, he's referring to Federal Government, meaning California would be free to be California and Montana would be free to be Montana. If you don't like the way things are going where you're at, you can move.

By all means....

if you dont want a national economic policy that strengthens our competitiveness in a global economy

or a national environmental policy that recognizes that the protection of our air, water and natural resources does not stop at the state borders

or a national energy policy that promotes alternative energy and lessens our dependence on foreign oil

or if you dont want to see the US remain the world's leader of medical, science and technology R&D

or if you want an isolationist rather than a president who will strengthen our bond will allies around the world to confront common defense and national security challenges

...then Vote for Ron Paul

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

or a national energy policy that promotes alternative energy and lessens our dependence on foreign oil

Let the free market do its thing, when someone comes up with something cheaper than oil that they can sell cheaper than petrol, they will, we're already on to that with ethanol and biodiesel.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

or if you dont want to see the US remain the world's leader of medical, science and technology R&D

Ron Paul doesnt want socialized medicine, like most others do, and socialized medicine is the real enemy of medical adavances In my opinion. Nobody works for free.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

or if you want an isolationist rather than a president who will strengthen our bond will allies around the world to confront common defense and national security challenges

I dont want to get involved in any more wars. What exactly is wrong with an isolationist policy? Unless we're attacked, we should not goto war. I for one would love to go back to 'Walk softly and carry a big stick'. And besides which, Ron Paul wants congress to be the ones making choices about who we goto war with, as it should be.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ziadel

Let the free market do its thing, when someone comes up with something cheaper than oil that they can sell cheaper than petrol, they will, we're already on to that with ethanol and biodiesel.

The free market isn't preventing wars over oil. I doubt it will make a turn in time to avoid a serious catastrophe with oil running out.

Originally Posted by ziadel

Ron Paul doesn't want socialized medicine, like most others do, and socialized medicine is the real enemy of medical adavances In my opinion. Nobody works for free.

What has RP said about medical insurance?
I'm pretty sure that he doesn't know how to solve the problem, even though if you look at any other western nation, you can see a system light years ahead of our own and socialized. I wonder if RP would be willing to let his hard line libertarianism go for the benefit of all Americans getting health coverage.

[intecel]

..

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ziadel

Let the free market do its thing, when someone comes up with something cheaper than oil that they can sell cheaper than petrol, they will, we're already on to that with ethanol and biodiesel.

Ethanol and biodiesel and other energy alternatives are being developed now, in part, because of tax incentives and other tax breaks there were major components of recent bi-partisan energy legislation.

RP voted against all these bills: the Clean Energy Act of 2007, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001...all of which promoted alternative energy development.

Ron Paul doesnt want socialized medicine, like most others do, and socialized medicine is the real enemy of medical adavances In my opinion. Nobody works for free.

I dont want socialized medicine either, but I do federally funded medical research.

RP voted against funding for NIH in each of the last 4 years.

He pretty much voted a blanket NO on every appropriations bill for the last 10 years and I am still waiting for a RP supported to explain how that offers a positive solution and how that would translate to what he would do as President when Congress sends him those bills with bi-partisan support.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

He pretty much voted a blanket NO on every appropriations bill for the last 10 years and I am still waiting for a RP supported to explain how that offers a positive solution and how that would translate to what he would do as President when Congress sends him those bills with bi-partisan support.

and do you know why he has voted no? because those laws would violate the constitution. why do you support violations of the constitution?

[Willravel]

It's not unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money. Please read the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and do you know why he has voted no? because those laws would violate the constitution. why do you support violations of the constitution?

How do they violate the constitution?

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

How do they violate the constitution?

Mebbe he just doesnt agree with how they are funded (taxes)

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and do you know why he has voted no? because those laws would violate the constitution. why do you support violations of the constitution?

It is absolutely not unconstitutional for Congress to appropriate money on any and all programs that provide for the general welfare of the US:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

welfare: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being

dk...unless there is a strict definition or enumeration of what constitutes "general welfare" somewhere in the Constitution of which I am not aware or a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines "general welfare" as it is applied in Art I, Sec 8, then your argument is baseless.

Originally Posted by ziadel

Mebbe he just doesnt agree with how they are funded (taxes)

I understand that he doesnt agree with how most federal programs are funded.

What I want to know is how he could possibly maintain that position and govern as President. (No RP supporters seem willing or able to answer that questions, nor does RP himself.)

Would he veto every appropriations bill?....Only to have most, if not all, overridden by Congress.

Is that really the chaos you want in your federal government? Do you have any idea of the impact that would have on your life...and not in a helpful, positive way.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

It's not unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money. Please read the constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

don't even begin to try to school me on the constitution. You're way out of your league.

spending bills alone are not in violation of the constitution, it's when there are thousands of earmarks that ARE in violation of the constitution, that the whole spending bill is in violation of the constitution.

If some of you people are going to actually require to have every damn detail spelled out for you in black and white detail, my posts are going to be longer than hosts. I'm pretty sure that most of you ignore his long ass posts because of this.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It is absolutely not unconstitutional for Congress to appropriate money on any and all programs that provide for the general welfare of the US:

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

welfare: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being

dk...unless there is a strict definition or enumeration of what constitutes "general welfare" somewhere in the Constitution of which I am not aware or a Supreme Court ruling that narrowly defines "general welfare" as it is applied in Art I, Sec 8, then your argument is baseless.

and a 250 million dollare bridge in alaska that goes to an island is 'general welfare'? This is the crap that is unconstitutional and you damn well know it. Again, if you require every minute detail about all specific arguments, you're out of your league.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I understand that he doesnt agree with how most federal programs are funded.

What I want to know is how he could possibly maintain that position and govern as President. (No RP supporters seem willing or able to answer that questions, nor does RP himself.)

Would he veto every appropriations bill?....Only to have most, if not all, overridden by Congress.

Is that really the chaos you want in your federal government? Do you have any idea of the impact that would have on your life...and not in a helpful, positive way.

so what you're really saying is that to make sure things move along smoothly, to hell with the constitution. what a fine upstanding law abiding american you are.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

don't even begin to try to school me on the constitution. You're way out of your league.

spending bills alone are not in violation of the constitution, it's when there are thousands of earmarks that ARE in violation of the constitution, that the whole spending bill is in violation of the constitution.

If some of you people are going to actually require to have every damn detail spelled out for you in black and white detail, my posts are going to be longer than hosts. I'm pretty sure that most of you ignore his long ass posts because of this.

and a 250 million dollare bridge in alaska that goes to an island is 'general welfare'? This is the crap that is unconstitutional and you damn well know it. Again, if you require every minute detail about all specific arguments, you're out of your league.

so what you're really saying is that to make sure things move along smoothly, to hell with the constitution. what a fine upstanding law abiding american you are.

dk.....I agree that many earmarks like the bridge to nowhere are unethical and Congress should do more to control such frivolous spending. If the $250 million bridge is unconstitutional, what is the parameter....the amount? Would a $1 million bridge meet your constitutional test?

But unconstitutional? Nope, but if Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party or watchdog organization believe such acts are unconstitutional, they should challenge it in court.

You dont get to decide what is legal and what makes upstanding a law-abiding American.....until you're on the Supreme Court,

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk.....I agree that many earmarks like the bridge to nowhere are unethical and Congress should do more to control such frivolous spending. If the $250 million bridge is unconstitutional, what is the parameter....the amount? Would a $1 million bridge meet your constitutional test?

anyone with a shred of intelligence should realize that 'general welfare' does not mean 35 people on an island. Anyone with a decent and logical intellect should know that 'general welfare' means something that benefits the country as a whole.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But unconstitutional? Nope, but if Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party or watchdog organization believe such acts are unconstitutional, they should challenge it in court.

You dont get to decide what is legal and what makes upstanding a law-abiding American.....until you're on the Supreme Court,

I'm plainly reading the constitution, unlike alot of other people on here who's only experience and knowledge of constitutional law exists from the start of new deal socialism from 1934. This includes the courts. They've been flat wrong on damn near everything since that year. The problem lies with people like you who've either been duped in to believing that the USSC knows all that the founders were thinking 200+ years ago or have been indoctrinated by the socialist mindset.

I repeat, anyone with a shred of intelligence can read the constitution and clearly understand what powers the government has and what it does not....anyone else is willfully torturing the interpretation to suit their own wants.

[dc_dux]

Your self-righteous insistence that you know the Constitution better than many Supreme Court justices and any other citizens who disagree with you on a particular interpretation is tiresome, baseless and insulting.

SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
Scope of the Power

The grant of power to “provide ... for the general welfare” raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] 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.” The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.

With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.

From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements” constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson. (dk...contrary to your assertion that it started with the New Deal)
...
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.

http://supreme.justia.com/constituti...l-welfare.html

[filtherton]

dksuddeth, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb" isn't a very compelling argument.

It might be acceptable if you could ever be bothered to back up the claims you make with anything beyond, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb," but that seems to be a rarity.

Really, i'm genuinely interested in the point you're trying to make, it's just difficult really relate to it when you refuse to back it up in any sort of meaningful way.

If the ussc isn't capable of interpreting the constitution, what makes you think that you are?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Your self-righteous insistence that you know the Constitution better than many Supreme Court justices and any other citizens who disagree with you on a particular interpretation is tiresome, baseless and insulting.

whatever, i'm still right. your little diatribe you linked to showed quite plainly that any 'broad' interpretation of general welfare came during FDR's new deal and not a true reading of the constitution. The Hamilton doctrine steadfastly shows that 'general welfare' was for the country as a whole, not specified locations such as an island in alaska or wetlands in north carolina, unless the fed government bought the land.

I also noticed that the lower half of the article had a lot to explain about how the feds coerce the states with funding to bring about it's agenda. If it were truly a 'general welfare' purpose then it wouldn't need to worry about recouping funding, as it would be 'general welfare'. It's blindingly obvious to rational people that the feds bribe the states to move a socialist agenda forward and that makes it technically unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by filtherton

dksuddeth, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb" isn't a very compelling argument.

It might be acceptable if you could ever be bothered to back up the claims you make with anything beyond, "if you don't agree with me you are dumb," but that seems to be a rarity.

It isn't any different than trying to 'lead a horse to water'. If they aren't willing to drink what is plainly in front of them, who am I to force it on them?

Originally Posted by filtherton

Really, i'm genuinely interested in the point you're trying to make, it's just difficult really relate to it when you refuse to back it up in any sort of meaningful way.

I back it up with the plain text of the constitution, what more do you want?

Originally Posted by filtherton

If the ussc isn't capable of interpreting the constitution, what makes you think that you are?

The USSC is completely capable of interpreting the constitution. What people conveniently bury their heads in the sand about is that there are two political agendas in this country when it concerns the judiciary power and neither of them have the constitution in mind. Again, the plain reading of the text of the constitution is very easy to understand. It's when you get people with an agenda that does not jive with the plain text of the constitution is where you end up with tortured definitions of words like 'is'.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by powerclown

Understood...I see it as an obligation and the price to pay for living in a civilized, advanced society. Any society enlightened enough to allow any of its citizens the opportunity to own their own piece of land free and clear, get an advanced education, bear arms independently, run ones own business as he sees fit, should also import a certain amount of responsibility to the others in that society. A large, co-op antfarm if you will.

I agree with your overall premise but am concerned with the limitations of your list of things being allowed by our enlightened society. Even so your point about our responsibilty to others is a good one.

"Own piece of land free and clear"
Until some polititian wants it for their brother in law to build a shopping center. Also many people who think they own their property are foreclosed on because they cannot afford the taxes.

"Bear arms"
Only stripped down weapons that fire one shot at a time and do not look nasty. It seems like every year they are trying to take away even these.

"Run one's business as he sees fit"
No way can we do this. We can't hire and fire at will and in many cases can't even choose who we want to do business with. Not to mention the numerous regulations some designed to limit competition and protect polititians campaign contributors, etc..

[parahy]

Amazing guy.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by parahy

Amazing guy.

Whoa, whoa, slow down. You've going a mile a minute!