You said: "not according to my site".
Which of the above did I get wrong? Sorry, if I missed something
RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll
- Thread starter Adam Weinberg
- Start date
You said: "not according to my site".
Which of the above did I get wrong? Sorry, if I missed something
BTW beefy, if you'll read through the thread, you'll notice I'm not the one who called ron paul racist. You'll have to take that up with other posters.
I said he has no policies to address discrimination and bias in this country.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
A garden variety neocon? Do neocons vote against the Federal amendment to ban gay marriage? Do neocons speak our against the Iraq war? Do neocons vote against the patriot act? Do neocons claim the war on drugs is an abuse of power? Do neocons want to legalize medical marijuana? Do neocons oppose the death penalty? Do neocons vote no on making flag burning illegal? Do neocons vote against CAFTA?
This is just a handful of shit. He may be more conservative that you, but that surely doesn't make him some "garden variety" neocon. That's flat dishonest. Are you really that afraid that a Republican might be right on some issues? Well, if so, let me reassure you, no Republican in any clothing is winning the Whitehouse in '08, so you can relax your smear campaign. You have nothing to worry about.
This is just a handful of shit. He may be more conservative that you, but that surely doesn't make him some "garden variety" neocon. That's flat dishonest. Are you really that afraid that a Republican might be right on some issues? Well, if so, let me reassure you, no Republican in any clothing is winning the Whitehouse in '08, so you can relax your smear campaign. You have nothing to worry about.
LOL
Beefy don't be inventing words I didn't say, and putting them in my mouth.
I didn't say he was a NeoCon. I said that, outside of a few issues, he was an ultra conservative. We can debate what constitutes a "handful". I've always given him credit on oppossing Bush's extra-constitutional power grabs. And for taking some cool positions of amending the constitution with silly crap like flag burning.
But, he certainly is ultra conservative with respect to the role of federal government in our nation. He wants it to provide national defense, and to protect gun rights, property rights, and so forth. I think if we made him dictator, he would most certainly eliminate all function pertaining to social services, education, science, and such.
As for me "smearing" Ron Paul - I think you will find if you go through this thread, that of the people on the left, I was pretty much the most deliberative and least inflammatory towards ron paul. But, I know you like to pick me out of a crowd to hassle.
Its cool.
Beefy don't be inventing words I didn't say, and putting them in my mouth.
I didn't say he was a NeoCon. I said that, outside of a few issues, he was an ultra conservative. We can debate what constitutes a "handful". I've always given him credit on oppossing Bush's extra-constitutional power grabs. And for taking some cool positions of amending the constitution with silly crap like flag burning.
But, he certainly is ultra conservative with respect to the role of federal government in our nation. He wants it to provide national defense, and to protect gun rights, property rights, and so forth. I think if we made him dictator, he would most certainly eliminate all function pertaining to social services, education, science, and such.
As for me "smearing" Ron Paul - I think you will find if you go through this thread, that of the people on the left, I was pretty much the most deliberative and least inflammatory towards ron paul. But, I know you like to pick me out of a crowd to hassle.
Its cool.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
LOL
Beefy don't be inventing words I didn't say, and putting them in my mouth.
I didn't say he was a NeoCon. I said that, outside of a few issues, he was an ultra conservative. We can debate what constitutes a "handful". I've always given him credit on oppossing Bush's extra-constitutional power grabs. And for taking some cool positions of amending the constitution with silly crap like flag burning.
But, he certainly is ultra conservative with respect to the role of federal government in our nation. He wants it to provide national defense, and to protect gun rights, property rights, and so forth. I think if we made him dictator, he would most certainly eliminate all function pertaining to social services, education, science, and such.
As for me "smearing" Ron Paul - I think you will find if you go through this thread, that of the people on the left, I was pretty much the most deliberative and least inflammatory towards ron paul. But, I know you like to pick me out of a crowd to hassle.
Its cool.
I'm not hassling you, I only picked you out because I know you well and I respect your opinion, as well as the fact that I came into this thread really late. I don't have the wherewithall to go through 650 million posts, so I singled out yours. Crucify me.
If you are a constitutionalist, and you respect the document, who, in your opinion, is holding it to higher esteem? It seems to me that most candidates view the document as an obstruction, an impediment or a pest.
You may not like the way the thing works, but don't be surprised when candidates run on the sanctity of it.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Mr. Beefy said:
Err...
They're not?
The constitution says that the congress may use funds to promote scienes, and that it may use them to promote the "general welfare".
Are you saying that all research funding is unconstitutional?
Listen, NO STATE in America can fund research all by it's lonesome on competitive levels to the EU and other multi-trillion dollar economies. If you don't believe that funding research is constitutional, then prove it, and let's just count the seconds until we've ammended the constitution to make it so.
Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
Weeeell, it says that Congress may promote science by passing laws offering intellectual property protections. Article One, Section 8, Clause 8.
Probably depends what it's for. If the research could be legitimized by a proper appropriation according to the Constitution, then maybe not.
But California is doing it, and can do so in coordination with the private sector if it desires, which is what Ron Paul would prefer.
Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.
Damo, do I have to log on under a different screen name, and pretend I'm a foxy liberal chick so you feel you can admit you made a mistake? I don't believe there's anywhere in this thread I suggested that ron paul himself was a racist.
And I said.... I was speaking to the thread itself at the same time as answering your post. The whole of everything I have to say isn't always about you. I know it is a hard hit to the ego, but there really are other members in this thread and it did start exactly as I said, you jumped on the train and now it has progressed to here where you propose exactly what he proposes, which is no change at all and you state that he is terrible for it.
Anyway, it is the conversation that I was speaking of, you know, the one you admit to not reading and therefore really have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you really going to try and say that the conversation didn't start there?
So, yes. I'll say that you personally didn't say he was a racist, but that was not the whole of the meaning of my post and you either know it or are the biggest ego attached to the smallest brain in the thread (I don't think you are... But if you insist that is what I meant then you really are).
You jumped on that train that started at that station, and rode it until it derailed, advancing the conversation from a point where you hadn't even read the previous to understand at what point it started, to the point where we are now.
Although I could "translate" for you the same way you did R. Paul (you know all that deliberation that must have gone into that) and say that you stated that all humans are racist and always will be in your post all about how tribal we are and therefore we never will get past that whole pigmentation thing, then advance that as stating that not only R. Paul is, but every single person on the board, let alone all that have been born are, but I won't be that disingenuous.
In this thread you are being deliberately ignorant of what he has to say or do in an attempt to dismiss all conversation based on assumption. It is weak.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Who really actually cares if the research is being done by states or federal?
Honestly, get a life.
Federal can do it a hell of a lot better than states.
Honestly, get a life.
Federal can do it a hell of a lot better than states.
Why do people insist on stating "General Welfare" and ignoring the fricking amendment that limits it? Amendment 10, read it Watermark, note that it was an Amendment and therefore takes precedence over the preceding. The limits that are on the Federal Government also limit the General Welfare clause. It is not unlimited, unless it has something to do with Interstate Commerce the Feds shouldn't be mucking about in it, even indirectly.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The constitution said:
"General welfare" is a power given by the constitution to the federal government. Don't see the conflict.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I mean, what are we talking about here?
1 million dollars in research for stem cell research in Vermont?
Who cares? The federal government can ACTUALLY fund research.
1 million dollars in research for stem cell research in Vermont?
Who cares? The federal government can ACTUALLY fund research.
Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress power to levy taxes "for the General Welfare" is a limitation not a power granted.
1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises
(first it gives the power then proceeds to limit the power to specific things),
2. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Later amendment 10 was passed so that they wouldn't go even further past the intended limitations.
1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises
(first it gives the power then proceeds to limit the power to specific things),
2. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Later amendment 10 was passed so that they wouldn't go even further past the intended limitations.
They are also limited by 10 to the specific powers mentioned for the Federal government...
Support of science is limited specifically.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Note they did it again...
1. The power is given: To promote the progress of science and useful arts
2. Then the limitations are explained: by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Support of science is limited specifically.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Note they did it again...
1. The power is given: To promote the progress of science and useful arts
2. Then the limitations are explained: by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It says that it has the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The tenth ammendment, basically, does nothing.
Litmus
Verified User
Basically darla chooses whom to support based on who argues with people on her shit list.
It's all mindless factionalism, with no coherence.
Litmus
Verified User
Are you expecting wm to combine TWO sentences? That may be a bit advanced for a newly born bushbot like him.
The general welfare clause is a stand-alone clause. There's nothing that indicates it is subservient to the clauses that follow it. This is a constitutionally settled matter. Everyone from Jefferson to Lincoln spent federal revenue on things that did not conform to the clauses that follow the tax and spend clause.
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;
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;