RE: Freedom...

RE: Freedom... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 2:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment. Bull, I think that it would be Articles 4 and 6. While I do not recall the exact phrase of "strong/powerful Federal Governement." Article 4 limits states powers and Article 6 is where you find the Supremecy Clause. I hope that helps your search.

xBullx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 3:20:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment. Bull, I think that it would be Articles 4 and 6. While I do not recall the exact phrase of "strong/powerful Federal Governement." Article 4 limits states powers and Article 6 is where you find the Supremecy Clause. I hope that helps your search. Thank you Aylee.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:02:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Not a bad guess Aylee...but to go a bit farther Bull,you might want to check out the Federlist Papers authored in chief by Mrs.Hamilton ,Adams and Jay Hamilton,Madison and Jay...Not Adams as justification and rationalization for the need of a strong central govt and Constitution to bind in a more stronger central govt the disparate colonies...which up to that point had been only loosley bound by the Artcles of Confederation. Jefferson and Madison You might want to read Madison in "federalist 9 & 10 where he argues for a large strong central government . were both on record as fearing such a strong consolidation of power..but were convinced of the need after insiting on an inclusion of a Bill of Rights.... I think you are thinking of George Mason the leader of the Anti-Federalist who was primary in the forces demanding a Bill of Rights as was Madison. .opening up a whole nother can of words as far as the belief that future Americans might conclude that only those rights eneumerated as such ....remained of the people.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:07:03 PM)
Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment. If you are looking for those exact words then you are up shit creek without a paddle for two reasons. 1. They ain't there. 2. I did not say them.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx This comment sparked my curiousity. It'd be helpful if you could show the support for your comment that the Constitution supports a strong and/or powerful central government... Ignoring all the bumpf along the way - the following parts of the Constitution limit the powers of the States: Article1, Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Article 6, Paragraph 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned.

xBullx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:42:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Still evading the point... You say it says a strong/powerful Federal Government...... I'm after the wording (in the Constitution) that backs up your comment. If you are looking for those exact words then you are up shit creek without a paddle for two reasons. That's ok, my "boat" has a motor. quote: 1. They ain't there. Kinda what I suspected; while I agree the Constitution subscribes to a more credible, useful and capable Federal Government, I don't believe the fathers of this nation ever intended to allow it to even become what it had by the time of the Civil War. Power and greed, good neighbor, power and greed; the dynamic duo leading to arrogance and corruption. quote: 2. I did not say them. Actually you did..... You stated the following in post 159 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to not be aware of the Constitution. You claim to have read both the Constitution and the Federalist papers but both of those documents go to great lengths to explane the necesity of a strong central government. Credibility, it's a motherfucker.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:42:44 PM)
At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned. Would you care to enumerate those "powers that have gradually centralized"?

thornhappy -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:47:01 PM)
Psychonaut? quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Real women are patriots, progressive women are in fact 'cunts'...who appointed you referee?..... don't like em...don't read um...simple....even for progressive stooges.... You know... if you're who I think you are, I don't like you in your real profile, but I have to hand it to you. This one is pretty funny. Credit where credit's due, this one is a winner.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:49:00 PM)
quote: quote: 2. I did not say them. Actually you did..... You stated the following in post 159 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx You seem to not be aware of the Constitution. You claim to have read both the Constitution and the Federalist papers but both of those documents go to great lengths to explane the necesity of a strong central government. Credibility, it's a motherfucker. quote: "to explane the necesity of a strong central government." You might also want to look at Federalist 9 and 10 for Madisons take on powerful central government. It would seem that you need remedial English as well as remedial history

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:51:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx At the time of the signing of the Constitution, the powers given to the Federal government were very clearly ennumerated and all other powers were explicitly granted to the States or the People (Amendment 10). Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned. Would you care to enumerate those "powers that have gradually centralized"? In 200 years!? That's an essay that would take weeks to write. The Federal government has assumed or been granted massively more authority than it was initially granted. Just from Amendments alone - Federal Income Tax, Removal of State Assembly's election of Senators, Bill of Rights applying to States as well as the Federal government Non-Amendments - Social Security (providing old age retirement pensions), the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency - even such things as Roe v. Wade shifted power from the States to the Federal government. Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States?

thornhappy -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman and pigs fly at Mach 1 Shit. I never figured they could even get transonic. Learn something new everyday.

thornhappy -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:54:56 PM)
Dude, I use rental cars down there. And you're much more likely to find "thedailywtf.com" or Flying Spaghetti Monster bumper stickers on my car [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Be sure and keep coming back....they will find you... especially with a big ole Obama sticker in your window....have fun with the gators....

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 5:56:46 PM)
Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States? I am just asking you to tell me which powers have been "usurped" in an unconstitutional manner? You mentioned the direct election of senators as something you seem to feel is wrong. Perhaps you might tell us why? Have you any idea why this came about?

thornhappy -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:00:23 PM)
Dude! I've stayed at the Inn there! For about 5 days, and I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Next time it'll be Victorville for me, though I liked the IHOP in Barstow. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx All y'all are real slackers, because I've been there 3 times and ya nevah caught me! Just try that in Silver Lakes [;)]

thornhappy -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:02:23 PM)
Just out of curiosity, from what I know small teams were inserted with Hueys, not a cargo lifter. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Chief Warrant Officer...CW-3 MOS 100C0 CH-47 pilot..... 16th CAG, 14th CAB, opcon 23rd INF DIV (Americal).... Multi-engine, turbine, tandem rotor ATP...Instrument and Flight Standardizaton Instructor for all incoming flight crews in Southern I Corps 70-71....and line pilot serving 11th Inf Brigade....Duc Pho RVN.... Ah yes...the bravery of being out of range. As much as I hate the idea, I have to come to Cucky's defense. The things he listed here ring true, unless he did a lot of research to concoct this, which I doubt. And the CH-47 crews were anything but out of range: Army Chinook Helicopter Crew Home At Last The CH47 "Chinook" helicopter was one of the workhorses of the Army's air fleet. As a cargo lift, the Chinook could carry up to 28,000 pounds on its external cargo hook, and is credited with the recovery of 11,500 disabled aircraft worth more than $3 billion. As troop carrier, the aircraft could be fitted with 24 litters for medical evacuation, or carry 33-44 troops in addition to the crew. On one occasion, a Chinook evacuated 147 refugees and their possessions on a single flight. The Chinook could be outfitted for bombing missions, dropping tear gas or napalm in locations fixed wing aircraft could not reach. The big bird could carry a large cargo of supplies.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:04:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Just to be sure - as you trying to say that over the two centuries since the founding of the nation, power has not accreted to the Federal government at the expense of the States? I am just asking you to tell me which powers have been "usurped" in an unconstitutional manner? You mentioned the direct election of senators as something you seem to feel is wrong. Perhaps you might tell us why? Have you any idea why this came about? Please show mw where I use the word "usurped" as you quoted. For that matter, please show me where I said that anything was "unconstitutional" or "wrong". You're inferring things that I did not imply. I said: quote: Over the past 200 years, power has gradually centralized and the individual States are much weaker and the Federal government much stronger than originally envisioned. This is a value-neutral statement. If you interpret the centralization of power and the growth of Federal government as a negative that's your take on the concept. I gave no opinion. Nowhere did I say that powers were "usurped" nor did I claim that any of the Amendments listed were "wrong" - again, this is your perception. My statement was that, over time, more and more power has accumulated to the Federal government at the expense of the States. You seem to take issue with that. Are you putting forward an opinion that a stronger central government was or is needed? Or are you just trying to start an argument for its own sake?

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Dude! I've stayed at the Inn there! For about 5 days, and I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Next time it'll be Victorville for me, though I liked the IHOP in Barstow. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx All y'all are real slackers, because I've been there 3 times and ya nevah caught me! Just try that in Silver Lakes [;)] Next time you are in victimville you need to stop and help me with a blunt.

thompsonx -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:18:38 PM)
I was seeking clarification of your position vis-a-vis the growing power of the federal government. You have told me what you did not say. So I am curious as to yours and everyone elses opinion of whether the fed has too much power and whether that is percieved as good or bad. The purpose is to promote discussion not arguement

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I was seeking clarification of your position vis-a-vis the growing power of the federal government. You have told me what you did not say. So I am curious as to yours and everyone elses opinion of whether the fed has too much power and whether that is percieved as good or bad. The purpose is to promote discussion not arguement Fair enough. I think that in, say, 1850 it was impossible to directly govern a nation as large as ours from a central location. The methods of communications and transportation simply did not exist. States had to have a large amount of autonomy, as did local communities. I would argue that in the early stages of our nation, the Federal government needed more authority. Now, however - the technology does exist to govern the nation centrally. Day-to-day matters can be ruled on from a central position. Unfortunately, I don't believe that 400+ people sitting in Washington DC can truly be in touch with 300+ million people. In 1793 one Representative actually represented about 30,000 people. Now a single Representative sits for better than 600,000. There are probably 30,000 people in my neighborhood here in NYC. It might be possible to get a sense of consensus on what they want. To get a handle on the views of 600,000 people os probably not even possible. By trying to force "one size fits all" solutions on a nation of 300,000,000 people is going to create conflict. I think there's a lot of value in attempting to determine exactly what powers, of necessity, must be handled centrally (like say the military or the currency) and which could be delegated back to the States and handled at a more local level. As simple examples: I'm not terribly threatened if California legalizes marijuana. I'm not really concerned if Tennessee doesn't. I think allowing the FCC to supervise the available bandwidth so we don't have stations state to state trying to drown each other out is probably a good idea. I think politics and the overall mood of the country might be greatly improved if everyone didn't feel like their side had to "win" in the next election or else get the other guy's view forced on you by the Federal government. So to sum up - I think the Federal government needed to be stronger than it was at its foundation, but currently the pendulum has shifted too far and it's creating unnecessary conflict. I think that pushing things that can be handled at a State level back to the States might have a beneficial effect on the nation as a whole.

Aynne88 -> RE: Freedom... (3/16/2010 6:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff quote: ORIGINAL: cuckyman Those same 'women and children' would slit your throat in a minute... a good number of NVA were women....and yeah, killing them did bother me....they ran faster, and we had to lead them a little further...... First you quote Apocalypse Now... and now it is full metal jacket.... Never in My life have I met a warrior who talks like you do. You are a poser and a fool. You bring dishonor to every person who has ever served. You disgust me Yo cucky you faker, this is my Dad, and he is a democrat and a hero. He recieved the Soldiers Medal for pulling 4 men out of a burning ship. If you did serve, you'd know they called them ships. Below is an excerpt from one of the blogs about real soldiers. You, like my friend Jeff said, make me sick. Want to challenge me on Vietnam history? Bring it bitch. "But unexpectedly, we got to meet a real 1st Cav. Ia Drang battle crewchief who flew in slicks and gunships and he was our guardian angel Phil XXXX and was in Vietnam in '65 and '66." Cucky so tell me how was la Drang? You are so full of shit.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875