Mns wrote:
Nice Google.
Then forget Google, and instead of someone else's eloquence, I'll just say you're a vapid twit who lacks the foresight to see what the actual end-result(s) of his half-assed assumptions about how things do (or should) work can and probably will be.
You're also probably just mad I can find something other than shopping sites and porn, and know that their are authors named Locke and Bastiat.
Mns wrote:
Which was proved wrong by someone who actually cared enough to learn the material as opposed to haphazardly throwing some excerpts from a long-forgotten history class with some google and some spin to fit your world view.
You being in agreement constitutes proof in pretty much the same way as G. W. Bush saying their are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq does.
Mns wrote:
I wouldn't call it "charity", considering it isn't free money. There may be loopholes, sure, but I imagine welfare isn't some sort of clusterfuck of welfare babies and crack addicts just like how government-run healthcare doesn't kill old people.
You wouldn't call it "charity?" What would you call it then, a gift? If it isn't "free," what are the recipients doing to earn it?
I also like how you "imagine" how things are, and take the time to compare welfare to a program that hasn't even been implemented yet just to take a cheap shot about 'death panels,' because everyone who thought the health "reform" bill was fucking retarded was a Sarah Palin fan. I can't wait to get to read farther and find out how I'm either a racist or dating Hitler.
Oh, you do get points for imagination, since the republicans forced reform on Clinton in the 90s. There is no longer an incentive for baby-machining your way to a monthly income, limits on aid, and assistance finding employment and job training. Maybe if you didn't think Googling was some internet faux pas, you could have found that out for yourself instead of pulling a John Lennon.
Mns wrote:
No, you're saying that other people being poor isn't your problem and as opposed to your tax dollars going towards the common good, it should be up to billionaires to take pots of money, go down to the ghetto, throw it around how they like, and people should be happy they're getting anything at all.
Other people being poor
isn't my problem, but that doesn't mean that I don't do something about it. I love when guys like you want to paint everyone who isn't for using the government as a means of plunder to fund your social agenda as some uncaring bastard who is only interested in their own welfare, but when was the last time you dropped your money in some charity's coffer? When was the last time you made a donation of cash or goods...or GOD FORBID TIME...to Goodwill or the Salvation Army? I don't volunteer (because I'm lazy), but I have given both goods and money in the last few months. Have you contributed anything, or do not bother because that's what your tax dollars are for, Ebeneezer?
Mns wrote:
Or maybe because the process of adding an amendment is so long and painful that we would literally never get anything done if we had to amend the constitution four or five times a year.
You do realize that adding an amendment is supposed to be long and painful so that fools and scoundrels don't fuckerize shit to the ground? No, of course you don't. You're just worried about...and this is one of my new favorite "the person that is saying this is clearly retarded" phrases..."getting something done."
Mns wrote:
If the intention of the Constitution was that we follow it to the letter, why the hell do we have a Supreme Court that (get this) interprets the Constitution? If we're supposed to take it literally, shouldn't we just repeal the past 230+ years of supreme court decisions if they didn't follow the exact lettering of the constitution?
Since they obviously don't teach you guys this shit in Jr. High anymore, let me fill you in: The Supreme Court exists as a check on the power(s) of the other two branches, at least since Marbury v. Madison. It is also an appellate court, and has original jurisdiction over matters between states and matters concerning diplomatic envoys.
I'm going to piss you off by not googling this, but by jumping straight to the Merriam Webster online:
to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms <interpret dreams> <needed help interpreting the results>. Interpretation is explaining or clarifying the meaning, which is not what you suggest. What you suggest is changing the meaning, and as I pointed out, we have a process for that. You don't like that process because the rules get in the way of what you want, so instead of abiding by the rules, you just say, "fuck 'em." Then you bitch when other parties decide that "fuck 'em" seems like a pretty good policy. When you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
The court doesn't overturn previous rulings in most cases because of a concept called stare decisis (probably spelled that wrong) that Tuhl could probably explain better since he's trading in his soul for a law degree. Personally, I like the idea of a body going back and saying, "we fucked up on this one here (Dred Scott)," but I think the concept is adhered to because the law would be otherwise unpredictable and could possibly changed based on future courts.
Mns wrote:
This is true for both sides, with the only exception being that liberals don't wrap themselves in the Constitution while at the same time either ignoring it or trying to get it repealed (ex. Tea partiers
insisting that America is a Christian state, the only black Tea Partier
trying to get news organizations censored for explaining wikileaks details).
Of course liberals don't wrap themselves in it, because in general liberals hate it because they don't like anything that gives primacy to the rights of individuals. You demonstrate that weird obsession with group identity politics with your silliness in that paragraph, because, of course, I didn't have to wait long for the "UR A LOLRACIST" bits. "THERE'S ONLY ONE BLACK TEABAGGER, LAWD, AND HE AN UNCLE TOM."
#1: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM[/youtube]
#2: If you're going to insist on tossing in the homophonbe/racist/anti-semite/frequent masturbator crap every time you say something about someone that disagrees with you, no one is going to take you seriously after a while...like about now.
If your only argument to justify tossing the rules out the window and doing whatever you want is that you never said you'd adhere to the rules, that's fine for you. The people backing the same dumbassery you believe in in DC, however, publicly swear an oath to the effect that they will uphold and defend the Constitution, so they're equally a bunch of fucktard hypocrites and aren't any better than anyone else.
Mns wrote:
True, but the vast majority of the people that people like you elected into office thought it was a good idea. Not to mention it's easy as hell to say in hindsight that you disagreed with something that's unpopular now.
It's also easy as hell to say in hindsight that I disagreed with something because I disagreed with it before it was hindsight. Do you know why I didn't agree with it? I didn't look at it and say, "it's OK because we're saying "FUCK THE RULES!!!" and these are my guys doing it, so it's OK," my thought was, "what happens when this power is in the hands of people who won't use it responsibly." Of course, not using it responsibly happened pretty much as soon as it was passed, so moot point, but it was bad policy.
Mns wrote:
I don't think a standing army is even part of the Constitution (as stated by other people in the thread), let alone standards to get into the military. I don't see you harping about how this is some sort of national tragedy and a massive overreach of government, but the second a nickel of your tax dollars goes to poor people you're up in arms about the commandeering of the state.
A standing army isn't provided for in the Constitution (though the Navy is, eat that, Dept. of the Army). There is much weeping and gnashing of teeth about this in libertarian circles. I think that in the clauses outlining the powers of the Congress to appropriate funds, terms on how long an army can be funded are defined, with the intention that we not maintain a standing, professional army. I think congress side-steps this admonishment by de-funding and re-funding, therefore technically staying within the terms, but I'm not sure. That's probably something else Tuhl may know since he's going over to the dark side (welcome aboard, by the way...have you gotten the fruit basket yet?).
However...though I haven't given much thought to it before now, if we're going to insist on having a standing army (which we obviously are) we need to make an amendment to the Constitution to allow us to do so...just as we should for any endeavor we propose to undertake as a nation for which the federal government doesn't clearly have authority.
Mns wrote:
But they just did. A whole of what, like 3 out of a couple dozen tea partiers actually got into office? Earmarks are alive and well and, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any sort of serious proposal for budget cuts from the Repulicans dealing with numbers that occur in the real world (while they also have said they're refusing to cut the military). As soon as Obamanomics got namedropped everyone ran right back to the corporatist shills that pissed off liberals voted out of office (mainly because most liberals stayed home, which I'm conflicted on).
The republicans picked up like 60 fucking seats in the house, how many of those were "tea-party" candidates, I'm not sure. I do know that some of the "tea-party" candidates that garnered the most attention were either batshit crazy or completely clueless about how you run a campaign.
Liberals stayed home because they're pissed that they didn't get single-payer and that Guantanamo is still open and Bush hasn't been led to a gulag.
Independents turned on democrats because Obama ran as a moderate but governed as a liberal.
It remains to be seen whether republicans will learn from their mistakes (I'm guessing they won't). Something is going to have to be cut, and because of the way thing are, I'd guess that in order to get something cut, everything will get cut a little. We can hope. Otherwise, I'm thinking sometime around 2025 we'll be selling California off to the Chinese to pay our debts.
Your Pal,
Jubber
