Anyone see the democratic mouthpiece on Fox this morning?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Bunch
 


Wow you are ignorant. Taxing people doesnt spur growth in the economy, it just makes government larger so they can spend money on crap pork.

You might disagree with my point that doesn't make you or me ignorant.


Bill Clinton didnt make the economy of the 90's, the computer and internet did. Computers made a huge leap in a short amount of time technologically which made them 10x faster than the ones produced in prior years. This increased productivity and sales which spured the economy to produce more, more quickly. Then the internet came to fruishion, companies were scrambling to get on with websites galore.


You are absolutely wrong on this one, ABSOLUTELY, Clinton economic policies where what created the economic boom the largest economic boom this country has EVER experienced, EVER.


Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992.

During the eight years of the presidency, the economy expanded by 50% in real terms, and by the end of his tenure the US had a gross national product of $10,000bn - one quarter of the entire world economic output.

The booming US economy has brought economic benefits right across the income spectrum.

The unemployment rate has dropped by half, to 4%, a 40-year-low, while the economy has created some 15 million jobs.

news.bbc.co.uk...



Taxes made it harder to hire employees, so people made do by working more hours for less pay. No government should ever have a surplus, that means they are taxing the people too much.


Computers and internet you say, but the reality is that that the economic boom was all across the spectrum. You say that companies were not able to hide but for some reason during the Clinton presidency the unemployment rate was reduce from 8% to 4% a 40 YEAR LOW.

Is so easy when you have facts instead of uneducated guesses and rethoric.



[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
There is nothing to refute, you are stating opinion. I prefer to deal in fact.


OK, I'll type real slow. I submitted the following facts:


Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.


Please refute the thesis that these protection measures are necessary.


They arent necessary.

The Constitution doesnt allow for them.

Pursuit of happiness, not guarantee of.

healthcare isnt protection of citizens, you are merely spouting opinion.

Same goes for education.

The FDA isnt part of the pursuit of happiness, nor is FEMA.

PLease try living in the real world if you wish to continue debate.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by hadjimagnet
 


I'm not going to get into a shouting blame game when it comes to the current economic crisis, the current economic crisis is one where BOTH parties where at fault, I can give you a long list of why but you can check that yourself.

We had a economic boom during the Clinton years that was ALL ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, rather than tied in to the real state sector of the market and thats a fact.

Its unbelievable, I just had to respond to a member that said that the economic boom wasn't about Clinton's, it was rather thanks to the internet and computers, and now you say that it was because the deregulation in the financial industries.

Sometimes a little fact checking do no harm, it beats uneducated guesses and rethoric.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 

Even the founding fathers disagree with your opinion:

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

Only those specifically enumerated.

Education or healthcare are not enumerated anywhere within the document.


I definitely see where you are coming from. However, IMO, the true genius of the constitution is that the founding fathers created within the document the ability to change it. They also had the foresight to write it in such way that terms like "general Welfare" were rather vague and could be interpreted however the majority saw fit. This is what makes this document so great, it lacks rigidity. It is a living breathing thing, not some long dead piece of paper written by a bunch of long dead men.

"A free government is a complicated piece of machinery, the nice and exact adjustment of whose springs, wheels, and weights, is not yet well comprehended by the artistes of the age, and still less by the people."
-John Adams to Thomas Jefferson 1821

Also, when interpreting the constitution, I feel it is important to hold it in the context of the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of the constitution is to limit the destructive, corruptible powers of the government. Whereas the Declaration of Independence was to outline the ideals the writers of the constitution wished to see embodied in their infant country.

"We hold the Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happinesss-"

IMHO, "Life" requires health care, and the "Pursuit of Happiness" requires an equal opportunity to education.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Ah but the DOI doesn't confer any powers. It doesnt give government the power to guarantee life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

No one is denied healthcare.

It is available to everyone. People that cant afford it? Want to bet they have a cell phone, a computer, a car, and a nice tv?

Its about priorities.

The Amendment process was made intentionally difficult. Why do you think none of the morons in DC have begun the process to add a healthcare amendment?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


OFF TOPIC

Im sorry whoever you are.

I have it as a rule of mine not to answer to anonymous posters, is a waste of time.

Come in and jump into the frey, get a screen name and become part of this wonderful community, we might disagree, but is worth it!



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


I got to agree with you when it comes to healthcare, I know that they are people that really need health care insurance but is really out of their reach, but their is people that just choose not to have it, I dont know how people can gamble with their well being, to me it makes no sense.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Ah but the DOI doesn't confer any powers. It doesnt give government the power to guarantee life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.



I know, that is why I said that it should be taken in the context of the constitution, which dose confer powers. After all, both documents were written / ratified / declared by essentially the same people around the same time. Keep in mind the the DOI was written before the constitution. IMO, because of this, one should take the constitution in its context. I am sure the founding fathers did.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Having the DOI in mind, if the founding fathers intended for government to fund more (such as healthcare, education, etc etc), why do you think they left such authorizations out of the Constitution?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


When it comes to education I dont think the founding fathers could envision how critical education would become for next generations and how a critical role would play in the development of the country.

This country has come this far because of education, in the times of the revolution we were mainly farmers, there where some educated people but it was the exception rather than the rule.


[edit on 14-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


But the founding fathers themselves were educated. You dont think they recognized education being important?

Federal involvement in education is factually unconstitutional. States are free to do what they want, but the federal government must be kicked the hell out of the educational system.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by Bunch
 

Federal involvement in education is factually unconstitutional. States are free to do what they want, but the federal government must be kicked the hell out of the educational system.


Can't disagree with that!

My point was that education is key to the survival of this country, the more educated the people the better for all. Education is on our national interest.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


I think they did not want to dictate to future generations. I think they wrote the constitution particularly vague in parts so that future generations could interpret it as they would see fit in the centuries to come.

Take slavery for example. The founding fathers knew that slavery was too complex an issue for them to tackle in their day in age. However, they knew that one day a generation would come along who would be ready to take this issue head on. That is why they changed the DOI phrase "All men are created Equal" from its original wording of "All white men are created Equal."



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


I agree 100%.

That being said, look at the current state of our educational system.

Federal involvement and standards are detrimental to students.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Mind providing a source for that "all white men are created equal" comment?

Why interpret when the words are right there?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Mind providing a source for that "all white men are created equal" comment?

Why interpret when the words are right there?


Um, I remember learning this in college. I did a quick google search and found this rather odd site that touts this fact. However, I am not too sure about the purpose of this page.

2ndlook.wordpress.com...

I am sure with further research a more valid source could be obtained.

As far as interpreting goes, that is what men do. In fact, there is an entire profession that is dedicated to the interpretation of what others, often long dead, have written, the legal profession. Furthermore, some men, they are called supreme court justices, spend their careers interpreting laws and documents such as the constitution.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Hey Constitutional, I know this is a bit off topic but I had a question and figured you would know the answer. How do I start a thread of my own. I have been a long time onlooker on this site and only recently set up an account. I see the button for "new thread" on each and every page, do I just click on it? How do I dictate where the thread is posted?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Constitutional Scholar
 


Um, never mind, I read the FAQ and answered my own question. I did have another one though, why do you have negative ATS Points? Did you get credit from the ATS store? Did other users somehow dock your points?



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


Mind providing a source for that "all white men are created equal" comment?

Why interpret when the words are right there?


Um, I remember learning this in college. I did a quick google search and found this rather odd site that touts this fact. However, I am not too sure about the purpose of this page.

2ndlook.wordpress.com...

I am sure with further research a more valid source could be obtained.

As far as interpreting goes, that is what men do. In fact, there is an entire profession that is dedicated to the interpretation of what others, often long dead, have written, the legal profession. Furthermore, some men, they are called supreme court justices, spend their careers interpreting laws and documents such as the constitution.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



here was her true quote without revisionist history.

Emma Lazarus
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
— Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus, 1883, at the Statue of Liberty



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Lol - thats funny. Idiots reporting the news. Can anyone give me a better reason than to not watch Fox? - Didn't think so.






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join