AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think though Thomas, you are interpreting Hamilton's view and the Court decision much differently than I am interpreting it. You seem to think Hamilton was advocating government charity. He wasn't. Nor do I think that is what the Court was advocating at the time as previously stated.

So what you're saying is that expanding the welfare state is unwise, but constitutional. True or false?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Yeah. I really had to take shiksa's calling Obama supporters "enemies of the United States" out of context in order to make it sound nutty.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Focus Cyclop. I am on the record of what I have said about Iraq on a number of threads. This particular line of discussion does not include Iraq, however, except as it pertains to current federal expenditures. It includes what our government is doing here and now.

I'll discuss whatever I goddamn well please, Fox, thank you very much. And I assert that any Republican who complains about so-called 'wasted' money under Obama is a hypocrite, if they cannot produce a record of much larger complaints about ACTUAL wasted money under Bush.

**** that and **** you too. Are you really going to fall in with the slack jawed dim witted idiots whining about "but, but, but Bush did it too! Whaaaa!" crowd? Wouldn't surprise me a bit being the whiny bitch you are.

Quote:

Quote:
You are on the record as being a 100% supporter of that. I am on the record as not supporting the bailouts and other insane spending at all.

You don't have to remind me what our positions are Fox; just answer the question. Should you be considered a traitor for upholding Bush's unlawful giveaway of billions of dollars in Iraq to US contractors, most of them political supporters of his, with no record of where the money went?

Cycloptichorn

It wasn't unlawful you ignorant prick. You are just jealous that none of your retarded liberal friends didn't get any of the pay outs. Perhaps if they put the weed down and picked up a shovel and found an actual job they could have been in line for some of the work.

So, instead of working, the whiny liberal crowd now can just go to Washington D.C. with their filthy, patchouli smelling hands out and whine like the filthy mongrels they are. Obama and his dumb ass legislative cronies will give them all they want and more. So whine some more you dumb bastard about the Conservatives and how they don't play fair, I am sure your comrades will think it's adorable.

1 Reply

The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois.
- Gustave Flaubert

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I think though Thomas, you are interpreting Hamilton's view and the Court decision much differently than I am interpreting it. You seem to think Hamilton was advocating government charity. He wasn't. Nor do I think that is what the Court was advocating at the time as previously stated.

So what you're saying is that expanding the welfare state is unwise, but constitutional. True or false?

I believe expanding the federal welfare state is both unwise and unconstitutional as the Constitution was originally intended. I believe every administration up to FDR saw it as I see it. And I believe the wisdom that made it unconstitutional has been proved--the welfare state makes quasi slaves of both those served and those who are required to serve.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So.. Hamiliton argues that the Fed government can get indefinite supplies of money for the general welfare.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

FALSE!
(1) Federalist Paper No. 45: Madison-- not Hamilton.
Doesn't say what you claim it says.
(2) The decision in the case, United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), was: "The Court found the Act unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states."

Quote:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/1935_401/
United States v. Butler
Facts of the Case:
As part of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The Act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under.

Question:
Did Congress exceed its constitutional taxing and spending powers with the Act?

Conclusion:
The Court found the Act unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states. Even though Congress does have the power to tax and appropriate funds, argued Justice Roberts, in this case those activities were "but means to an unconstitutional end," and violated the Tenth Amendment.

For more detail see the decision:

Quote:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
United States v. Butler

No. 401

Argued December 9, 10, 1935

Decided January 6, 1936
...

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Yeah. I really had to take shiksa's calling Obama supporters "enemies of the United States" out of context in order to make it sound nutty.

No, but you had to take out of the context the point he was making re the bailouts to arrive at that conclusion. Funny how some think that is okay to do to a 'conservative' but they scream bloody murder if anybody does it to them.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I didn't draw any conclusion. I merely quoted shiksa. Here, I'll do it again:

cjhsa wrote:

Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.

If you think that within this context, it's valid to call all Obama supporters "enemies of the United States", that's fine with me. You seem to think that this is the kind of context that would be sufficient to summarily call people you politically disagree with enemies of the state or traitors, you go to incredible lengths to defend the original statement, you invite the poster in question over to have a tea and a cookie and contribute his valuable insight to the discussion. You know, this is not what this says about shiksa, this is about what this says about you.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I believe expanding the federal welfare state is both unwise and unconstitutional as the Constitution was originally intended. I believe every administration up to FDR saw it as I see it.

And there is really no reason to "believe" anything. Just read it up in The Founders' Constitution, a collection of founding era sources illuminating how the constitution was originally interpreted. These sources make it perfectly clear that the Founding Fathers disagreed about the proper interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. All the Supreme Court did in the 1930s was to take one side of the disagreement over the other.

Sure, you can selectively quote one side of the disagreement and create the illusion that the Founding Fathers unanimously agreed with you. But that doesn't mean the illusion is real. It only means that you keep fooling yourself. I can't stop you, so be my guest.

Foxfyre wrote:

he welfare state makes quasi slaves of both those served and those who are required to serve.

Then I predict you have never met either actual slaves or actual welfare recipients. Probably the former.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

**** that and **** you too. Are you really going to fall in with the slack jawed dim witted idiots whining about "but, but, but Bush did it too! Whaaaa!" crowd? Wouldn't surprise me a bit being the whiny bitch you are.

Yaknow, the funny thing is, the quality of this paragraph is actually much higher than your norm.

I'm not saying 'Bush did it too;' I'm stating that what went on during the Iraq invasion was far, far worse than anything going on right now, re: wasted an unaccounted for monies. You bunch of idiots disagree with the stimulus; fine with me, if you don't like it, try and get some people elected who won't do such things - if you can, which it seems you can't.

But, at least there are records of where that money is being spent. As for the billions and billions wasted in Iraq, that was handed out as cash to contractors who in many cases did no work, there are no records. And neither you nor Fox nor anyone on your side said **** about it, because you really don't ******* care, as long as the cash is being handed to Republican contractors as part of a war effort.

It gives the lie to your outrage, ultimately selective, completely partisan, completely fake, and nothing more than what I've come to expect from you group of ******* dead-end losers.

Quote:

You don't have to remind me what our positions are Fox; just answer the question. Should you be considered a traitor for upholding Bush's unlawful giveaway of billions of dollars in Iraq to US contractors, most of them political supporters of his, with no record of where the money went?

Cycloptichorn

It wasn't unlawful you ignorant prick. You are just jealous that none of your retarded liberal friends didn't get any of the pay outs.[/quote]

It is unlawful to hand out taxpayer monies with no records to your political supporters. It's called corruption and fraud. Which you well know.

Quote:

Perhaps if they put the weed down and picked up a shovel and found an actual job they could have been in line for some of the work.

What a crock of ****. Perhaps you have noticed that the most expensive places to live, full of people who work hard and make tons of money? Yeah, they are almost entirely liberal. Whereas the Conservative areas are in the sticks, where it's cheap. Don't lecture Liberals about work, it is we who fund the Red states - completely and totally. Without our tax dollars paying for your improvements, much of 'flyover country' would be fucked on infrastructure. Frankly you should be thanking your betters and benefactors instead of attempting to insult them.

Quote:

So, instead of working, the whiny liberal crowd now can just go to Washington D.C. with their filthy, patchouli smelling hands out and whine like the filthy mongrels they are. Obama and his dumb ass legislative cronies will give them all they want and more. So whine some more you dumb bastard about the Conservatives and how they don't play fair, I am sure your comrades will think it's adorable.

The best part is, at the end of the day, your political party is still fucked. It doesn't matter how many insults you want to throw my way; we're just going to keep getting what we want for the known future. And you know this.

So, yeah. Toss out more stereotypes against hippies(as if that had any relevance today). Call me whatever you like. And we'll just keep marching right over your inbred foreheads, electorally and rhetorically, until we get what we want. And there isn't **** you can do about it.

How does that feel?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

amen. These "same" people who support right to life also support killing abortion doctors who live within the laws of this country. During the campaign last year, a conservative shouted "kill him" when talking about Obama.

If they want to use a big brush for Obama supporters, we can also assume they are talking about themselves.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

Says old Tom as he whips and drives his slaves to provide him with more of the fruits of their labor.

1 Reply

@old europe,

No, it's about what you and your ilk say about her. Nothing new here.

Why should any conservative here give a flying piss what any liberal thinks of them. It's a pathetic game you guys are playing. A2K has been a liberal safe haven since I joined. It's a gang of misfits, ill equipped for the real world, to come and vent about their frustrations and their fellow 12-steppers will support them for it.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Now, that was funny! LOL

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

It's a gang of misfits, ill equipped for the real world, to come and vent about their frustrations and their fellow 12-steppers will support them for it.

That would certainly explain why you're a regular here.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

That was a good one! LOL

0 Replies

@Thomas,

He's here on false pretenses, not having gotten past step one. "I am a radical conservative and my life has become unmanageable."

0 Replies

This SO deserved repeating...

Quote:

Toss out more stereotypes against hippies(as if that had any relevance today). Call me whatever you like. And we'll just keep marching right over your inbred foreheads, electorally and rhetorically, until we get what we want. And there isn't **** you can do about it.

How does that feel?

Cycloptichorn

Bravo, Cyclops.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I believe expanding the federal welfare state is both unwise and unconstitutional as the Constitution was originally intended. I believe every administration up to FDR saw it as I see it.

And there is really no reason to "believe" anything. Just read it up in The Founders' Constitution, a collection of founding era sources illuminating how the constitution was originally interpreted. These sources make it perfectly clear that the Founding Fathers disagreed about the proper interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. All the Supreme Court did in the 1930s was to take one side of the disagreement over the other.

Sure, you can selectively quote one side of the disagreement and create the illusion that the Founding Fathers unanimously agreed with you. But that doesn't mean the illusion is real. It only means that you keep fooling yourself. I can't stop you, so be my guest.

If I am creating an illusion, it should be quite simple to show it for the illusion that it is. I think I'm on pretty safe ground what the Founders believed about unalienable rights, however, and the basic thought and principles that were written into our Constitution. I disagree with your conclusion re what the Supreme did in 1930. You take the point of view the liberals prefer. I take the point of view the 'conservatives' prefer, but I'm guessing at face value, based purely on the wording of the decision, I am on more firm ground there than you are.

And I didn't have to use an ad hominem argument to make my point as you did.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
he welfare state makes quasi slaves of both those served and those who are required to serve.

Then I predict you have never met either actual slaves or actual welfare recipients. Probably the former.

It is true that I have never met an 'actual slave' at least that I recognized as such, but your prediction would be dead wrong that I have never met an actual welfare recipient as I have devoted a pretty good chunk of my vocational and avocational life dealing directly with welfare recipients.

Can you say the same? Or do you draw your opinions strictly from the "Big Brother's Handbook of Compassionate Welfare Platitudes"?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
It's a gang of misfits, ill equipped for the real world, to come and vent about their frustrations and their fellow 12-steppers will support them for it.

That would certainly explain why you're a regular here.

I'm certainly happy to see that you feel that you fit right in and are in good company.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know