spike
New Member
Yeah, I was just taking "life" from that one and adding in two other things that support the idea.
Pot meets Kettle...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
Yeah, I was just taking "life" from that one and adding in two other things that support the idea.
spike
New Member
I'm glad they enumerated that life thing and provided for protection of the citizens.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Don't get me wrong Prof. I did not mean "shut up" as in you Prof, should shut up about this.....Not at all, though I can see why is was easy to mistake and for that I apologize. I mean, that in a general sense, I see it as a "mind your own fucking business issue". The kind of issue that the conservative philosophy is supposed to hold dear.
In general, I have a lot more respect and am much more apt to want to listen to your opinions than most folks who tend to the right. You present your points civilly and I admire that. Feel free to debate with me.
I believe, but I can't "know", that in a general sense that a fetus isn't truly a person until the brain begins to develop. It is just a personal belief. It is also a personal belief, that even if I am wrong about that, that it is hard to raise it to the level of "murder" when it isn't a living breathing, outside the womb entity, and that it should be people's right to choose. If you don't like the choice, don't choose it!
Given the fact, that as nice and it would be if it were so, unfit mothers and parents in general rarely can give up an infant for adoption. Given the horrors that the born children sometimes endure, I think in many cases abortion is a blessing. These poor abused, and neglected children only grow up to continue the cycle usually. They become criminals often and are a burden, not only on their families, but society as a whole.
Does that make any sense to you?
Life, no matter how hard, savage or unfair, always beats the alternative. Because, without it, you have, quite literally, nothing. with no hope of ever rising above your situation.
randomJACKASS
Banned
OK when some ghetto rat comes and robs and kills a member of your family (God forbid that happen to anyone here I am only speaking hypothetically) and it turns out he was abused and neglected by his mother and all her many pimps and boyfriends, well just come back at me with what you just said....
spike
New Member
Gonz said:
We're going in circles here. You chose to interpret the right to life as preventing women from ending a pregnancy. I interpret it as protecting us from the biggest threats to our lives which are health issues.
Also you've only looked at one person's interpretation of "General Welfare".
"Why in any event, the Federalists asked, would any man "choose a lame horse, lest a sound one run away with him?" (173) In defending his plan to subsidize American manufacturing, Hamilton argued in 1791 that "[t]he phrase [common defense and general welfare] is as comprehensive as any that could be used." The constitutional authority of the Union to tax, he said, should not have been restricted within limits any narrower than the 'General Welfare.'"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3086/is_1_22/ai_n29239687/pg_3/?tag=content;col1
This is how we have unemployment insurance and social security as well.
I think in reality here you're just very against those with preexisting conditions having access to the healthcare they need more than others.
Maybe you could explain where in the constitution it authorizes invading foreign countries that are not threatening us?
Because he was well known to be a nationalist of his time. There were many heated arguments with him about the authority of the federal government. So many in fact that he had little to do with the convention in which he called for.
James Madison, author of the Constitution & Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, both were strongly for a weak federal government, as were the voters on the Constitution in general.
Article 1, Section 8...Congress shall have the power to declare war. It does not give absolute reasons. Congress did declare war, three times.
spike
New Member
Yes, there were disagreements and you can't just pick a side you prefer and declare it the legal interpretation. Otherwise I can just declare Hamilton correct because there's a hell of a lot of evidence he was. Read the article.
Where? The last declared war by Congress was WW2.
So you're telling me that you can't find anywhere in the Constitution where the ability to invade countries that are not threatening us is specifically enumerated? By your logic that was illegal. And you know the founders would be rolling in their grave.
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" - John Quincy Adams
randomJACKASS
Banned
You also have to see that I wish I was generally more like that myself. I do genuinely try to be most of the time, but I am a big user of perhaps "over passionate" language and am oft misunderstood. Couple that, with the fact that I am a hot head and when I feel like the other side of a debate is condescending or rude, I fall into that trap myself as a reaction all too easily. I kind of get that "eye for an eye" thing, only with my intense addictive personality I tend to go for a 2/1 eye ratio! This doesn't excuse rudeness, condescension or counter attacks made by me at all. I am in AA and NA more to change my attitudes and adopt a better way of life. The cessation of drug and alcohol use is only a necessary step on that road in my opinion. The essence of what the AA big book teaches has a lot to do with positive spiritual growth and very little to do with being hell bent tea totallers. In fact nowhere in the book will you find anyone say alcohol is evil, only that alcoholism is negative for those afflicted.
I really recommend that anyone who wishes to understand alcoholism and addiction and to read inspirational but not religious books should read the first 164 pages of Alcoholics Anonymous. I also highly recommend "The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure: A Holistic Approach to Total Recovery". I warn you to take the second book with the understanding that it does not portray an accurate picture of AA, but talks a lot about the few negatives and mostly the people in AA who don't work the program for whatever reason. It also represents a Malibu treatment center so it is a bit of an advertisement. Still, it contains a LOT of wonderful wisdom about life and how to live it in an entirely different tone than the AA book, but essentially it is at the core very similar. Everyone may find different paths and so long as one reads these books with an open mind, they are excellent reads.
I guess that is a long winded way to say I respect and admire you Prof and wish to learn to be a bit more like you.
(Mine is full of root beer with added caffeine!)
Article 1 said:
S J Resolution 23
H J Resolution 114
There's another about Iraq, two voted were taken. I just forget the resolution.
My "side", is the one that was taken by the AUTHORs of the Declaration & teh Constitution. Yours is by a politician.
spike
New Member
Those aren't declarations of war.
Also have you been able to find this enumerated power to invade non threatening countries?
They all were politicians. You're not reading the article.
randomJACKASS
Banned
His side is a fantasy. Right or wrong, it would take a second revolutionary war to even get anything resembling his side in effect, and it would be a mistake at that. I am not sure why he lives in such a bizzaro fantasy world. I suppose in some way he is obvious firmly grounded in mundane realities, but it must be a rough existence to believe in a fantasy and be constantly disappointed by reality.
Sad the amount of sheep we have who are willing to trade their liberties for, what?
My side is self preservation & liberty. I refuse to accept the government "giving" me my own money & calling anything but what it is, thievery.
spike
New Member
Gonz, we didn't declare war on Iraq. Gato has even complained about it remember? So you're wrong.
Nope, you have provided no enumerated power to invade non-threatening foreign countries. None.
Yeah, why the hell did you and the other sheep trade our liberties for jack squat with that last pres? That was fucked up.
Gato & I have never agreed on this point.
Since both resolutions specifically mention Article 1, Section 8 & state
it look like a war declaration to me.
Since there is no specific wording as to what a declaration of war must contain, this seems to fit.
Congress has authority to declare war. That in the authority, under Art 1, Sec 8.
spike
New Member
Because you're wrong. There was no formal declaration of war. The last one was WW2. Check an encyclopedia.
You find that enumerated power for me yet?
spike
New Member
Go back and see how they did it the last time in WW2.
You listed a section that simply says they can declare war. They didn't declare war.
It is not enumerated that they can declare war anytime, on anyone, for any reason. It is not enumerated that we can invade foreign countries that are not threatening us.