AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

Holy jumpin' sheepshit!

Better check your M-W on the meanings of spell out and imply, Ican.

I think that even Foxy will vote to have you kicked out of the literalist's club.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Only if sheepshit stinks! ican's way out there someplace no man has gone before.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks.

If it's true that the federal government is restricting projects to union workers, then how are 8 out of 10 construction workers "locked out" of those projects? After all, they can just join the construction union, can't they?

Yes. Most MACs, however, support right to work laws as a principle of freedom and think any job paying a decent wage is better than no job at all. Americans should have the right to work without subjecting themselves to oppressive union rules, and Americans should have the ability to negotiate wages and costs apart from unions representing 15% or so of the work force.

So you'd agree that it's a false choice to say that the "locked out" construction workers can just join the union, correct?

Clarify what you mean by 'it is a false choice to say that the "locked out" construction workers can join the union."

Should it be the government's prerogative to say that a person must belong to a union in order to work? Suppose the government should say that you must belong to the Republican Party or any party or parties sanctioned by the government in order for a person to work? Suppose the government should require you to pledge an oath to...oh say the Giant Spaghetti Monster or some such in order for you to be able to work? Would you not oppose such?

Why should the unions be sacred or inviolate to anybody?

I don't have a problem with government contracts being awarded to closed union shops if such shops will guarantee an acceptable product and are the lowest bidder. I have a huge problem with government contracts being awarded ONLY to union shops or those shops willing to benefit the unions.

Don't you?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, yes we did have this discussion before. In that discussion I stated that the federal courts were not granted by the Constitution the power to either legislate or amend the Constitution (See Article III for confirmation). Therefore, the federal courts cannot legally legislate what the Constitution means, and the federal courts cannot legally amend the Constitution. If the Constitution does not grant such powers to the federal courts, then the federal courts cannot legally exercise such powers.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It is my opinion that there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to dispense any form of charity

It is your unalienable right to hold that opinion -- however misinformed it may be, and however ill supported it may be by the constitution's text and constitutional caselaw.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Clarify what you mean by 'it is a false choice to say that the "locked out" construction workers can join the union."

Well, you argue in favor of a "right to work." But if the government is only hiring union construction workers, and everyone has the option of joining the union, isn't that enough of a "right to work?" In other words, when the author of the article you linked says that non-union workers are "locked out" of government jobs, would you argue that no one is locked out because everyone has the option of joining the union, or would you say instead that they shouldn't have to join a union if they don't want to?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

In the old'n days, when I went to school, the feds did not finance any part of my education.

oh. so you, or your parents, singlehandedly underwrote every single dollar and aspect of your public school education?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

It is your unalienable right to hold that opinion -- however misinformed it may be, and however ill supported it may be by the constitution's text and constitutional caselaw.

Thomas pointing out what a pot Foxfyre is. Smile

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Ok, Joe. I guess you think this clause in Article I. Section 8. does not "spell out" the Constitution granting the feds the power to PRINT MONEY:
"To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;"

No, of course it doesn't. Even your dictionary definition of "securities" doesn't include paper money -- for a very good reason: paper money isn't a "security." As your definition notes, a bond can be a security, and we know that the constitution authorizes the federal government to incur debt. So it's pretty clear that the "securities" mentioned in that clause of the constitution refer primarily to government bonds, which were (and are) the only kind of securities that the government typically issues.

ican711nm wrote:

I infer PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.

I can't imagine why -- that's a pretty dumb inference.

ican711nm wrote:

If PRINTED MONEY are a kind of SECURITIES, then that clause I quoted saying, "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities," clearly implies the feds are granted the power by the Constitution to PRINT MONEY, but it is a violation of the law for anyone to counterfeit such printed money securities.

If.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT, I infer from your post that you do not know what the word "imply" means. Help is on the way!

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imply&x=18&y=6
Main Entry: im·ply
...
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE, ENWRAP
2 a : to indicate or call for recognition of as existent, present, or related not by express statement but by logical inference or association or necessary consequence <enrollment in the college implies willingness on the part of the student to comply with the requirements and regulations of the college -- Bulletin of Mt. Saint Mary's College> <the philosophy of nature which is implied in Chinese art -- Lawrence Binyon> <democracy implies a number of freedoms> <emergency and crisis imply conflict -- H.S.Langfeld> b : to involve as a necessary concomitant (as by general or logical implication , by signification, or by very nature or essence) <two propositions may imply a third> <war implies fighting> <an acorn implies an oak>
3 : to convey or communicate not by direct forthright statement but by allusion or reference likely to lead to natural inference : suggest or hint at <the girl's evasive answer and burning brow seemed to imply that her suitor had changed his mind -- Edith Wharton> <made me sick to hear him imply that somebody would make a report against him -- Joseph Conrad> <the tone of the book was implied by shrewd advertisements -- J.D.Hart>
synonym see INCLUDE, SUGGEST

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

oh. so you, or your parents, singlehandedly underwrote every single dollar and aspect of your public school education?

NO!

I wrote: "In the old'n days, when I went to school, the feds did not finance any part of my education.

It was the state and the property owners--including my parents--in my school district who financed my education. That's hardly "singlhandedly."

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Oh. So you're harboring the suspicion that Ican is less than fully coherent on this point? If that were the case, it would less-than fully surprise me.

At this point, I think it's more than a suspicion.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know as I don't know anything more about it right now than what was in that brief blurb. It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

it's a lovely piece of misinterpretation

they're counting on people to not bother looking at the source document/s and/or not to try to understand what they actually mean

Set's posts on the subject are instructional.

~~~
~~~

There is no requirement for workers to become union members to work on Federal projects. At least not with the current proposal.

There are requirements as to what employers are required to pay, but they are not required to hire only union members. It's not on.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is my opinion that there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to dispense any form of charity

It is your unalienable right to hold that opinion -- however misinformed it may be, and however ill supported it may be by the constitution's text and constitutional caselaw.

My opinion was shared by our Founders and by every President up to FDR. I doubt that you can find any Constitutional case law ruling on whether it is the government's prerogative to dispense charity because I don't think the question has ever been put to SCOTUS. SCOTUS has ruled the equal protection laws require that certain charity be extended to certain groups after such charity has been extended to other groups, but I don't think you can find any SCOTUS ruling in which the Federal government is required to provide benevolence, relief, benefits, a helping hand, or by whatever name you wish to call charity to anybody.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe, wise up! Of course, PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.

It's pretty dumb to claim otherwise. Anyone can cash in printed money or printed bonds for that which they wish to buy, including cash in printed money for bonds and cash in bonds for printed money. Printed money and printed Bonds are both forms of securities that can be legally exchanged for each other.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Your opinion was shared by our founders? ROFLMAO

BTW, how about god?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Clarify what you mean by 'it is a false choice to say that the "locked out" construction workers can join the union."

Well, you argue in favor of a "right to work." But if the government is only hiring union construction workers, and everyone has the option of joining the union, isn't that enough of a "right to work?" In other words, when the author of the article you linked says that non-union workers are "locked out" of government jobs, would you argue that no one is locked out because everyone has the option of joining the union, or would you say instead that they shouldn't have to join a union if they don't want to?

What gives the Federal government the right to use the people's money to favor, benefit, and enrich unions? And I would say that those who choose for whatever reason not to join a union would be 'locked out' if there is in effect a rule that only union labor will receive government contracts.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

American conservatism in 2008 and beyond doesn't seem all that different from American conservatism in 1908 and beyond or 1808 and beyond.

To infinity! And beyond!

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

In the old'n days, when I went to school, the feds did not finance any part of my education.

oh. so you, or your parents, singlehandedly underwrote every single dollar and aspect of your public school education?

Well yes my parents did because they paid enough in school taxes to cover the 'per capita' cost of my and my sister's education. And we were blessed to receive superb education too despite no Federal funding.

With the onset and increase in federal funding as a matter of policy, we have steadily seen the quality of education drop. In Washington DC which is almost totally federally funded, students enjoy the highest or close to highest per capita spending at all levels, and turn in some of the worst results with less than a 50% graduation rate.

Tell me again how the federal government utilizes the peoples' money wisely when it comes to education? I support the Federal government leaving the money with the states and local people to manage. The Federal government should collect statistics and make them available and otherwise stay out of the education system altogether.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

CONSERVING or rescuing our constitutional republic in 1789 is what the founding fathers worked to do.

CONSERVING or rescuing our constitutional republic in 1889 is what conservatives worked to do.

CONSERVING or rescuing our constitutional republic in 1989 is what conservatives worked to do.

CONSERVING or rescuing our constitutional republic in 2009 is what conservatives are working to do.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know