It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

# If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
# Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?
# Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?
# If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
# Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?
# Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?
# If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?

# If you hated Bush soooo much-
Why would you give more POWER to the very government that someone like him, could become in power again, hell his brother Jeb is thinking of running.


# Cannibalism should be celebrated.
# Politicians do say "equal pay for equal work" but no politician ever says "equal pay for little or not work."
# Men don't have issues.
# Because it is their belief that your belief is not a valid belief.
# No I have not noticed this.
# Can anybody trust a politician before he labels the truth as hate speech?
# If the poor vote for someone who promises to eliminate poverty and he succeeds, then they will vote for him again because he is the first politician to actually solve a social problem by himself.
# I didn't hate Bush.
edit on 31-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
So Smedley thinks that ANYTHING the government does is okay.

Alright, we have a self admitted statist.

See, that was not so hard.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by MMPI2
Author and commentator Michael Savage suggested that "liberalism is a Mental disorder."

I think he is dead on. To be a "progressive"/statist liberal, you really have to be not only a narcissist, but also a textbook psychopath.

For folks like bill clinton, harry reid, barney frank, etc., you have to be a narcissist, a psychopath and delusional. You MUST be able to avoid objective reality to the point that you almost (and perhaps sometimes completely) lose contact with it.

The questions we've presented here will not be answered in a logical manner. They will be met with invective, ad hominem slop and poorly thought-out attack.

STAR AND FLAG!!





so, if you KNOW the answers to your questions will be illogical, full of slop, and poorly thought out, why do you even ask them? logically, any response to your questions will automatically be wrong, so why would anyone even bother?


No. You are incorrect, but thank you for responding and asking a legit question.

There are logical, non full-of-slop and well thought-out responses to those questions that I've posed.

Tomorrow, after I come home from the night's festivities, I will answer the questions I posed in what is the most honest way a liberal could possibly answer them.

Thanks again.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



OK

Please give me the definitive list of what constitutes General Welfare?

Itemize this specific list and then we will talk


The key is in the vocabulary - something many people do not seem to appreciate, the value of a word:

". . . to promote the general welfare . . ." Is the exact line you are referring to. What do you suppose it means to promote something? When I promote exercise, what am I doing? What actions constitute promoting exercise?

Now, contrast this with the phrase: ". . . provide for the common defense . . ." Now, we see a different word in use. Rather than -promote- the common defense, we see this word 'provide' being used specifically for this statement. What do you suppose it means to provide something? When I provide you with an internet connection, what actions constitute that?

Now, compare and contrast the meanings of the two words - while there are similarities between them, there are notable differences that will do you well in this conversation.


If you hate the Federal Government, why do you support letting the companies that influence the federal government operate without restriction?


If I am given the power to tell your boss who can and cannot be promoted within your job, do you not believe I would get a bunch of extra "friends" willing to buy me things and perform various services for the opportunity to advance?

This is not unlike what happens when you give the government the power to heavily influence corporations. The more say the government has in what businesses get to survive and what businesses don't - the more cost-effective it is to lobby for policy within the government. Notice that the pharmaceutical companies don't lobby on motor-vehicle concerns or agricultural concerns - it doesn't benefit them to play that market.

Get the government out of business, and the businesses will not waste their money on doing something that doesn't benefit them. It doesn't make sense to pay for lobbyists if the government isn't going to make policies affecting your business, now does it?

A little critical thinking goes a long way.

That's mostly all I saw that was really worth replying to. The rest is arguing over whether or not the questions of the OP are worth answering - and I've learned how to pick my battles, that one isn't really worth it.

The question I have for "progressives" is this: When has any society that attempted to use the machinations of government to provide a common standard of living ever seen long-term success? When I say long-term, I'm not talking a year. That's horridly short-term in the scope of society. Twenty years is about where the overlap of short and long term is in the case of society. Long-term is over a century.

What has led to the -progress- of living standards and lifestyle in many, if not all, of the societies present and past?

If you were a cookie, what kind of cookie would you be?

That last question is the most important one, no joking around will be tolerated.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


General Welfare Wiki


James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax



Thomas Jefferson said of the General Welfare clause, "To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of the power completely useless."


Original intent is what's important here. That's what everyone seems to want to argue, I find it ridiculous that people assume no one knows what the founders wanted when we have so much information to work on.
The General Welfare clause cannot be the only authority sought to pass legislation in which money is spent. Because doing so would violate the other enumerated powers of the US Constitution.

Amendment 9:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ultimate power always rests in the people. Government does not have authority to grant or remove rights, that is up to the people, and there is a process for that too, it's called the amendment process.


Do you know how many times I have read and been posed with this same argument???

I asked YOU to list what qualifies as general welfare?

Surely they did not interject such a phrase in such an important place for no reason. You are asserting that the phrase is meaningless -

did you know that Welfare was a synonym for health - still is



1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.


www.thefreedictionary.com...

But again, please list ten things that constitute general welfare, because I suspect you do not fully comprehend
the entirety of your entire argument

10 things that constitute a constitutional manifestation of general welfare???

You can do it!!!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Again, the General Welfare clause is NOT a power or a descriptor of POWER. It is a descriptor of purpose.

Read the Constitution again. And then go back to the Federalist Papers for reference.

The Constitution has enumerated powers. The General Welfare clause must be used in conjunction with powers derived from the Constitution.

This means keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, defending the nation etc. The rest is up to the states and to the people respectively. If your argument had merit the Federal Government would be arguing their authority for the new HC Law based on the GW clause, instead they are arguing Commerce clause, but that too has it's modifiers and limitations. Something Progressives never seem to acknowledge.

The Constitution doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean.
edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Janky Red
 



OK

Please give me the definitive list of what constitutes General Welfare?

Itemize this specific list and then we will talk





The key is in the vocabulary - something many people do not seem to appreciate, the value of a word:

". . . to promote the general welfare . . ." Is the exact line you are referring to. What do you suppose it means to promote something? When I promote exercise, what am I doing? What actions constitute promoting exercise?

Now, contrast this with the phrase: ". . . provide for the common defense . . ." Now, we see a different word in use. Rather than -promote- the common defense, we see this word 'provide' being used specifically for this statement. What do you suppose it means to provide something? When I provide you with an internet connection, what actions constitute that?

Now, compare and contrast the meanings of the two words - while there are similarities between them, there are notable differences that will do you well in this conversation.


Ok lets head to the dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com...

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:



www.thefreedictionary.com...

pro·mote (pr-mt)
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
1.
a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.


Ok lets combine the first two synonymous entries

To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank; Health, happiness, and good fortune



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Did you know the SCOTUS use dictionaries from the 18th century to derive the original intent of the founding documents(If they don't have a political agenda)?

Try finding the meaning of words using 18th century understandings of language.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Did you know the SCOTUS use dictionaries from the 18th century to derive the original intent of the founding documents(If they don't have a political agenda)?

Try finding the meaning of words using 18th century understandings of language.




wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.
1.
a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.
Middle English ,from wel faren, to fare well, from Old English wel faran : wel, well; see well2 + faran, to get along; see fare.]


Middle English
The English language from about 1100 to 1500.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

edit on 1-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Did you know the SCOTUS use dictionaries from the 18th century to derive the original intent of the founding documents(If they don't have a political agenda)?


Like the SCOTUS' who voted for citizens united???

I suppose PEPSI was in that dictionary entry as INDIVIDUAL



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Citizens United VS. The FEC:


As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President … means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election … is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93 , this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 , that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.


Text of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law. It was right that this law was found unconstitutional. Political speech should be open to all persons and groups.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You gave me a modern definition with an etymology between 1100 and 1500? That is not the 18th century sir.
edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: Pardon me, I meant 18th

edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: YAY this is my 6000th post. Thanks Janky!



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Citizens United VS. The FEC:


As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President … means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election … is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 540 U. S. 93 , this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 , that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.


Text of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law. It was right that this law was found unconstitutional. Political speech should be open to all persons and groups.


This ruling is a farce and an attack upon the republic - For all your constitutional grandstanding, in this instance you support a decision directly undermines the funding of our electoral process and subsequently the principle
outlined in the constitution. This ruling hinges upon the idea that corporations are individuals and granted the
full protection of the constitution. Corporations are NOT humans, their charters are granted by the people and their rights and existence are subject to governance in ACCORDANCE with the constitution.

The INDIVIDUALS that comprised Citizens United retained their rights as individuals and the CITIZENS in the organization still retained all their constitutional rights.

and you have the sack to quarrel about the genesis of a word, but defend this liberal stretch is pathetic -
I am sure Jefferson would support corporatations and foreign money directly influencing and funding our process
BTW great way to stop fascism, socialism, corruption, spending and growth of government
Brilliant!


edit on 1-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I have absolutely no idea where you got that from. At no point did I admit to being a 'statist,' because I am not a statist. You haven't even twisted my words; I said absolutely nothing about the state. I even gave clues that I think politicians and, by extension, the state is entirely corrupt. You still found a way to accuse me of being a 'statist' because, I presume, you have misidentified me as a 'progressive.'

I guess you have proven me correct, you deliberately presented these dishonest questions knowing full well that you weren't going to take the responses seriously.
edit on 1-1-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: grammar



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You gave me a modern definition with an etymology between 1100 and 1500? That is not the 18th century sir.
edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: Pardon me, I meant 18th

edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: YAY this is my 6000th post. Thanks Janky!




this is a ridiculous argument on your behalf - health is the most intrinsic part of an individuals well being...

what are you arguing BTW???

congrats upon your long history of contribution! Here's to 6000 more
edit on 1-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The government's expansion and the people's ignorance is what is giving rise to corporatism in this country. There are ways, through legislation, that we could use to prevent corporate influence on legislation. There are many examples out there, like the balanced budget amendment, or legislation to force congress to derive legislative authority from ONLY the Constitution and explanatory documents such as The Federalist Papers And the Declaration of Independence . I also recommend an amendment that makes it a felony to willfully violate the Constitution which would include, but not be limited to, NOT READING BILLS BEFORE PASSAGE.

Government cannot tell citizens, nor organizations formed by citizens, how they shall spend their money, nor can they tell citizens the groups they represent cannot petition for a redress of grievances, or support candidates of their choosing.


Edit:

Also, Congress is FORBIDDEN by the Constitution to make ANY law that restricts free speech. Meaning that the mere act of even considering this legislation valid is unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law".
The corporations can put up candidates for sale, but it is up to the people to make an informed decision whether to buy what they're selling or not.
edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


What I'm saying is that original words and intent are important. If the founders really intended to screw the whole country by assigning the General Welfare clause base power as the other enumerated powers, then they purposefully made the Constitution to self destruct. But we have mountains of evidence, in their own words, what they considered the General Welfare clause to be.

General Welfare, again, is not an enumerated power.
edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: Thank you kindly...I hope I do get 6000 more.

edit on 1-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Government cannot tell citizens, nor organizations formed by citizens, how they shall spend their money, nor can they tell citizens the groups they represent cannot petition for a redress of grievances, or support candidates of their choosing.

The corporations can put up candidates for sale, but it is up to the people to make an informed decision whether to buy what they're selling or not.


WOW

what is the point of all your hubbub, if you support such a principle?

this ruling and its implication would make the founding father weep...

Lets leave it be - you depress me



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You don't get it. I'm saying there are ways to protect the system from undue influence without violating every other tenet of the Bill of Rights. You can't just willy nilly decide that certain groups in this country don't deserve their right to free speech.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Ok lets combine the first two synonymous entries

To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank; Health, happiness, and good fortune


Let's use our brain, instead.

"To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank." I got promoted to Petty Officer 2nd Class. The only one out of my rate to be advanced this cycle, I might add, with a 98% pass rate on the exam. I am now given greater authority and responsibility within the function of my unit.

To that end, how can you, in the same context, promote a concept or ideology? You can't. Which is why to 'promote' an ideology is to raise awareness and aid in the function thereof.

To "provide" is to establish and maintain. There is a considerable difference between the two words, used to apply to two separate ideologies within the same paragraph.

Never was it said that welfare should or would be provided. It said it would be promoted.


Corporations are NOT humans, their charters are granted by the people and their rights and existence are subject to governance in ACCORDANCE with the constitution.


Legally, yes, Corporations have always been treated as individual entities entitled to rights. The entire reason you incorporate is to separate personal and business financial liability. If I start a business and a lawsuit is filed against it as a sole proprietorship, everything I have is in jeopardy. If I incorporate, none of my personal assets can be touched - as the corporation and myself are different things (even if I'm sole/majority stock holder).

Now, laws can be established to regulate behavior within reason - libel and slander charges can be applied to me even though I have the right to free speech. Similarly, a food company can't sell you an orange claiming it's an apple (provided you are too silly to know the difference).


I am sure Jefferson would support corporatations and foreign money directly influencing and funding our process BTW great way to stop fascism, socialism, corruption, spending and growth of government Brilliant!


Stopping it is pretty simple. Get the government out of business, and business will no longer have any reason to hang around in the government.

Simply stop trying to use the government to regulate the business sector; even better, pass an amendment that clearly says "We are no longer going to create laws regarding the operation of businesses, merely prosecute businesses for abridging the rights of citizens working within their company using the judiciary system as it was intended."

Lobbyists would then find themselves impotent. If Congress will not/cannot create laws regarding businesses, then what power does a Lobbyist have? What power does a corporation have over the government? Very little.

The only reason business hangs out with government is because the precedent has been established that the national government can step in and micro-manage business operations. Because of this, it means businesses -must- lobby as a form of representation, and it also gives larger corporations the power to use that 'representation' to get legislation passed that hinders competitors.


WOW

what is the point of all your hubbub, if you support such a principle?

this ruling and its implication would make the founding father weep...

Lets leave it be - you depress me


Since we're sharing opinions, your continued existence only strengthens my favoritism of some form of eugenics policy. You're just such an awesome and bright character that everyone should be like you!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join