AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

(1) Congress does not have the legal power to expend taxes for activities that it is not granted the power by the Constitution to perform.

Since Congress has the ability to spend money for the "general welfare" that leaves you with the burden of showing that a "reasonable" person can't view it as contributing to the "general welfare."

Since you are not a reasonable person, what you believe doesn't matter. It is what the courts believe, what Congress believes and what the majority believes is reasonable. Since they have all agreed that spending for the general welfare includes what Congress is spending for, your statement fails.

And that which has been corrupted can in fact be made right. That which the court has ruled one way can be overturned by another court ruling a different way.

Quote:

Also, when you use such adjectives to describe these people, I doubt seriously you have spent any serious time listening to any of them at all though I don't doubt that you have at least heard some of them now and then.

Seriously, you seriously doubt my seriousness?

I don't get this thing you have, Fox, where you claim that people who listen to or read the same things you did, and come up with different conclusions, must simply either not understand what they read or didn't actually read it. I have spent lots of time reading and listening to these people. They make all sorts of crazy and illogical comments on a regular basis. Malkin in particular is willing to advance ANY story negative towards Democrats, regardless of it's veracity.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

And that which has been corrupted can in fact be made right. That which the court has ruled one way can be overturned by another court ruling a different way.

Not as much as you might think... there's a reason that established Caselaw is so powerful.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Also, when you use such adjectives to describe these people, I doubt seriously you have spent any serious time listening to any of them at all though I don't doubt that you have at least heard some of them now and then.

Seriously, you seriously doubt my seriousness?

I don't get this thing you have, Fox, where you claim that people who listen to or read the same things you did, and come up with different conclusions, must simply either not understand what they read or didn't actually read it. I have spent lots of time reading and listening to these people. They make all sorts of crazy and illogical comments on a regular basis. Malkin in particular is willing to advance ANY story negative towards Democrats, regardless of it's veracity.

Cycloptichorn

I don't ask or expect everybody else to agree with me and I have no problem with those who can provide a rationale for why they don't. But I think those who claim to read, listen, and understand can articulate what they read, listen to, and understand. For instance, if I say something is crazy and/or illogical, I figure I should be able to back that up with a credible example. Otherwise it is just schoolyard taunts, daily talking points, hate speech.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

And that which has been corrupted can in fact be made right. That which the court has ruled one way can be overturned by another court ruling a different way.

Not as much as you might think... there's a reason that established Caselaw is so powerful.

Cycloptichorn

Common sense, original intent, and changing circumstances often does trump case law. Which is why court rulings are so often overturned by higher courts and why the Supreme Court has on occasion overturned itself.

Yes. Well some of us who haven't drunk that kool-ade yet are still trying to keep us from running headlong off the cliff.

Oh, by the way, my mortgage payment hasn't arrived yet. Is it in the mail?

Yes. Well some of us who haven't drunk that kool-ade yet are still trying to keep us from running headlong off the cliff.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes. Well some of us who haven't drunk that kool-ade yet are still trying to keep us from running headlong off the cliff.

I don't know what that means. Does it mean you think American courts have 'drunk the koolaid?'

Cycloptichorn

I told you I can't afford to pay yours. I wish I could, but I simply don't have it. So sorry. You'll just have to be the ungreedy and unselfish one and do the right thing as you suggest that the rest of us should be willing to do here.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes. Well some of us who haven't drunk that kool-ade yet are still trying to keep us from running headlong off the cliff.

I don't know what that means. Does it mean you think American courts have 'drunk the koolaid?'

Cycloptichorn

No. It means that some of us haven't yet drunk the kool-ade that makes us complacent with the idea that the government can and should tax us as much as it wants and spend the money however it wants.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes. Well some of us who haven't drunk that kool-ade yet are still trying to keep us from running headlong off the cliff.

I don't know what that means. Does it mean you think American courts have 'drunk the koolaid?'

Cycloptichorn

No. It means that some of us haven't yet drunk the kool-ade that makes us complacent with the idea that the government can and should tax us as much as it wants and spend the money however it wants.

But, the SC has disagreed with you, as Parados has pointed out. Do you or do you not respect the authority of the Judicial Branch? As a so-called 'MAC,' you really only have one option.

Cycloptichorn