This just in from Heckovajob Brownie: Help for Sandy came too fast

[hobbsyoyo]

@Hobbs- I think you may be right in this case, depending on how you define "General welfare."

Hurricane/disaster relief counts by any definition.

The force is strong with you.

 

[FriendlyFire]

@Hobbs- I think you may be right in this case, depending on how you define "General welfare."

Welfare and unions are in the constitution.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Kay.

Now that you agree it's good for the general welfare and see how it's constitutional, kindly, forever, stop talking about how we need to get rid of it.

THANK YOU.

Apply these same principles to the rest of the government and you'll see 99% of what they do is constitutional and those who say it isn't are living in a fantasy universe of their own design which contains nothing but Ron Paul's sweaty, hairy, heaving old-man bosoms.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Kay.

Now that you agree it's good for the general welfare and see how it's constitutional, kindly, forever, stop talking about how we need to get rid of it.

THANK YOU.

Apply these same principles to the rest of the government and you'll see 99% of what they do is constitutional and those who say it isn't are living in a fantasy universe of their own design which contains nothing but Ron Paul's sweaty, hairy, heaving old-man bosoms.

I think most people, and particularly liberals, stretch "General welfare" into something very different. "General welfare" benefits the entire country, not specific groups of people at the expense of others.

I don't need to say things are unconstitutional to agree with or disagree with those policies however. There are a number of things our government does that I disagree with and would disagree with them even if you could show me precisely where they were found in the constitution (Income tax for one, its completely constitutional but I don't agree with it as a method of taxation.)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Kay.

Now that you agree it's good for the general welfare and see how it's constitutional, kindly, forever, stop talking about how we need to get rid of it.

THANK YOU.

Apply these same principles to the rest of the government and you'll see 99% of what they do is constitutional and those who say it isn't are living in a fantasy universe of their own design which contains nothing but Ron Paul's sweaty, hairy, heaving old-man bosoms.

Worst gloating over a won argument. Ever.
Come on, do you expect to win over people if you win the argument and then bash them for it?

I don't need to say things are unconstitutional to agree with or disagree with those policies however.

Er......then quit screaming 'unconstitutional!' with everything you disagree with. Just because you and Ron Paul think that way doesn't make it so. I'm glad though that you're getting to the point that you'll at least listen to other points of view.

And yes, I'm a blowhard who doesn't listen to anyone either. So I'm a hypocritical jerk, I know.


But please keep in mind that when Congress passes a law and it isn't challenged, or better yet it is challenged and wins (Obamacare), then it's pretty much Constitutional until proven otherwise.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm aware that that's how things have worked since 1804 but that doesn't make it right. At best it makes it reality, but it hardly makes it the right ruling.

I mean, the way you're saying it is it sounds like if Congress passed a law saying that the President could order the arrest of anyone who said something he didn't like, and the Supreme Court upheld it by saying "Congress shall make no law... that doesn't mean NO law, if its a law restricting speech its constitutional because there is no precedent that we deem relevant where the government cannot restrict speech" you're basically saying that's then constitutional. Which makes the Bill of Rights itself virtually irrelevant.

And while my example is hyperbolic extremism to make a point, there was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that "In clear and present danger" the government could restrict freedom of speech. While that MAY be accurate (While the first amendment does say that "Congress shall make no laws regulating speech" it also does allow habeus corpus to be suspended during times of public safety requiring it, although I do not believe that option should be provided) World War I, a war fought far away from US shores, surely did not, yet the Supreme Court said it did. They are, quite frankly, wrong.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Worst gloating over a won argument. Ever.
Come on, do you expect to win over people if you win the argument and then bash them for it?

It's not my goal to win people over or change minds.

People make up their own minds. My goal is to force them to answer hard questions that they've been ignoring, and make them face uncomfortable truths.

If they can face those truths and answer the questions they've been ignoring, then I don't care if they don't change their minds. At least they've faced what they've been ignoring all along.

People who go through life in a comfortable little bubble need to experience having that bubble burst, and realizing there's something outside of it.

Once they face that, they can go back into their bubble, or decide for themselves it's better to live outside of it.

I'm just forcing the choice. It's not one they'd make on their own. Sometimes that requires being very blunt, because for some people, there is absolutely no other way to reach them.

If that makes me an ass in this example, so be it. If you're stuck in the mud, sometimes it takes a mule to pull you out. That doesn't mean mules are particularly sociable or well liked. It just means they've performed that function adequately.

If you want to jump back in the mud after, mule doesn't care.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

People make up their own minds. My goal is to force them to answer hard questions that they've been ignoring, and make them face uncomfortable truths.

You did that. Then rubbed salt in the wound. Not classy, and it makes it harder for you to get further points across or make them face more uncomfortable truths. They'll just ignore you.

But hell, I'm one to talk. I'm a total jerk most of the time.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I got Dommy to acknowledge he was wrong on his core points, without which he had no business railing against FEMA in the slightest. Now he can't continue to do so without looking completely nutters.

Even if he doesn't like me for it, it will prompt him to be more careful and think through some of the things he says, lest he face a similar circumstance on another thread.

If he isn't more careful, he'll either eventually learn through repeated examples, or he'll make a mockery of himself by never learning and then nobody will take his rhetoric seriously because they know it isn't backed by substance.

Regardless of what he does, mission is accomplished. If he chooses to ignore me next time it will sort of prove that he can't face reality. Nothing is more damaging to someone's rep.

As for rubbing salt- that particular wound needed just a little salt. It stings at first, but it's the only way they'll learn.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think most people, and particularly liberals, stretch "General welfare" into something very different. "General welfare" benefits the entire country, not specific groups of people at the expense of others.

2 things.

1. Hurricane/disaster relief does not benefit the whole country. And you just agreed that that's the sort of general welfare you agree with.
2. General welfare of the (according to you) undesirable kind enables more people to be consumers, which benefits the economy and directly benefits the entire country.

 

[JohannaK]

Really, it is hard to imagine that you are a different person IRL, pizza.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Really, it is hard to imagine that you are a different person IRL, pizza.

On the political football field, I tackle hard and put on the air of being brutal. Then I go home, put on fuzzy bunny slippers, put my feet up, and sip a beverage from its cool container, and quietly read webcomics and design mafia games for others to play, regardless of political affiliation.

I leave whatever I need to on the field, but once I'm off the field, I really don't give a rat's

 

[kochman]

In other words... a blow hard?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Aren't we all?