Well... they did it

[AVGWarhawk]

Just what is the carbon footprint of this car

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Just what is the carbon footprint of this car

Carbon footprint?

dont hassle yourself with that AVG, it will all work itself out in the end! all you need to know is that this thing is sporty, and has a lot of sex appeal, but you MUST buy it in the next 2 hours! come on AVG, get out your check book and lets make a deal!!! hurry up, just dont ask all those silly questions! you are a serious buyer, hurry hurry hurry! sign here!!!

[GoldenRivet]

I'll add this to the discussion.

with respect to Queen Pelosi... the supreme governance of all the land is right here.

Mrs. Pelosi, i recommend you read section 8 and STFU,

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Article 1 Section 8 US constitution

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Providing general welfare includes health care in my book. Then again, I am of the opinion that hospitals should not run for profit, but that the wages of the staff be kept competitive.

That being said, this will probably fail because when you have two parties fighting for power which are nigh on identical in action, but diametrically opposed in rethoric it is hard to get something done.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

nigh on identical in action, but diametrically opposed in rethoric it is hard to get something done.

They've sure done a fine job of creating the illusion of choice, haven't they?

[CaptainHaplo]

AntiKrist....

It says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - not provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States CITIZENS.

Remember, the United States is two distinct words - UNITED - and STATES - aka a government that is to defend the STATES themselves, in aggregate, from any external aggressor. The system as defined in the constitution is about a federal government that is tasked to maintain the soveriegnty of each state, and resolve issues between them.

Not babysit every person in the nation. If your arguement were accurate, then its the government's job to provide me with a home, a car, all the food I need, my electricity and other untilities, as well as health care.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

AntiKrist....

...... If your arguement were accurate, then its the government's job to provide me with a home, a car, all the food I need, my electricity and other untilities, as well as health care.

Could it? I'd have more time to play Silent Hunter.

Buddahaid

[Platapus]

In reading the writings of James Madison, it appears that people have been debating this very issue of what does "Provide... for the general welfare of the United States" mean and not mean.

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were of the mindset that this clause did not grant congress unlimited powers.

So this is not a new debate nor one that is easily solved I am afraid.

Our Constitution, like other Constitutions, was a compromise and has different interpretations. Hence the need for a Supreme Court.

So far, the Supreme Court seems to be supportive of what Congress has been doing for at least the past 100 years.

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

AntiKrist....

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - not provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States CITIZENS.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


BAM!! Your argument is shredded, and your premise is denied.- Have a nice day.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Providing general welfare includes health care in my book. Then again, I am of the opinion that hospitals should not run for profit, but that the wages of the staff be kept competitive.

That being said, this will probably fail because when you have two parties fighting for power which are nigh on identical in action, but diametrically opposed in rethoric it is hard to get something done.

Im all for equal education and health care for everyone in Finland but im not sure even that could ever work in an multi ethnic and cultured US.

But social welfare i would like to see cut even here, it is starting to be abused by the immigrants and ethnic Finns alike.

As long as most of the users share the same moral values, responsibility for oneself, it works.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I'll add this to the discussion.

with respect to Queen Pelosi... the supreme governance of all the land is right here.

Mrs. Pelosi, i recommend you read section 8 and STFU,

Well if you can find specific cases where Ms. Pelosi has violated the Constitution, why don't you call the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States 202-479-3011 and let him know.

Or write to your congressional representatives and let them know.

If not, perhaps you are mistaken about who should STFU?

[GoldenRivet]

by attempting to push through a bill which FORCES the American people to buy a government product or service - yeah IMHO thats unconstitutional, but according to you and a lot of other nuts in the religion of Pelosianity my opinion doesnt amount to a hill of crap.

i dont see that Congress has that right or power as laid out in the constitution to force me to buy something or pay a fine if i elect not to. whats next? resurrection of the Stamp Act???

way to take it personally there platapus

"Provide for the General Welfare of the United States" = Promote the well being of the nation (another failure on the part of congress by allowing so much of our vital industry to be exported to foreign shores amongst other things) the United States is a nation. the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES is something else entirely.

I would completely understand if it had said...

"Provide for the General Welfare of the PEOPLE." which it most expressly does NOT say

i would assume that the framers of the constitution would have been smart enough to write that in if they had intended for the government to take complete and total care of every individual.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

to take complete and total care of every individual.

Oh lawdy the hyperbole is a flyin!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

"Provide for the General Welfare of the United States" = Promote the well being of the nation (another failure on the part of congress by allowing so much of our vital industry to be exported to foreign shores amongst other things) the United States is a nation. the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES is something else entirely.

I would completely understand if it had said...

"Provide for the General Welfare of the PEOPLE." which it most expressly does NOT say

i would assume that the framers of the constitution would have been smart enough to write that in if they had intended for the government to take complete and total care of every individual.

Haplo and GR: Next time there is an argument about what is supposed to be different about our country, please don't say "Of the people, by the people, FOR the people." I agree that the original concept was to protect individual freedom and autonomy for the citizens, but the wording has been argued about for as long as the ideas and ideals have. Nit-picking the wording to prove your point doesn't prove anything.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Haplo and GR: Next time there is an argument about what is supposed to be different about our country, please don't say "Of the people, by the people, FOR the people." I agree that the original concept was to protect individual freedom and autonomy for the citizens, but the wording has been argued about for as long as the ideas and ideals have. Nit-picking the wording to prove your point doesn't prove anything.

Steve - your capitalization of the word FOR makes the perfect point - its not JUST one part of that at a time. Its intended to be a goverment that does FOR the People in the ways Of the people that they want BY the people that are duly elected. Not just one section. The issue with this mess is that it may be FOR the people - but it is not OF the people since the people didn't support it.

As for nit-picking the wording - as I said in my previous post here - words mean things. Substituting those words for other ones with "similiar" meaning changes the original intent. So for accuracy sake we should be VERY concerned with the meaning of the words. It is not "nit-picking" when one insists that something means what it says, vs it meaning something other than what it says.