United States Presidential Election, 2012

Blastoise said:
If we define "big government" as "government that makes laws about almost everything in the country", and the "big government" makes laws about something that the Constitution does not say it can, then it is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Okay, so all you were really saying is that the 10th amendment is evidence that states have power. Good job.


There is a word for "government that makes laws about everything," it's called a unitary government. 'Big government' specifies nothing, and implying a unitary form of government just by saying 'big government' is a far stretch.


Edit: Also, in your original post you didn't even say big government, you said "larger government [is] unconstitutional"

You keep saying you were implying that your statement was referring only to reserved powers, but your original post clearly doesn't say that.

I'm just going to assume you've accepted the fact that you can't justify any part of the statement "The Constitution is designed to put the states above the federal government, which makes larger government unconstitutional," based on the fact that you keep avoiding answering the question. Not to mention the statement is completely false, which I guess makes it understandable that you have no reasonable argument to defend it.

gg no re
 
Stargatedalek said:
I wouldn't have ever posted here again but I found this pic so funny and it has to do with the election :P
team-rocket-romney-ryan-pokeman-jpeg.4657

BTW I know next to nothing about politics...
Click to expand...

i already posted that

and gp posted it before me
 
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
Edit: Also, in your original post you didn't even say big government, you said "larger government [is] unconstitutional"
Click to expand...
I did? I think what I meant by that was what you're saying - a unitary government.
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
You keep saying you were implying that your statement was referring only to reserved powers, but your original post clearly doesn't say that.
Click to expand...
Hmm... Well then, I guess I worded something incorrectly in my original post. My mistake.
Christian Brutal Sniper said:
I'm just going to assume you've accepted the fact that you can't justify any part of the statement "The Constitution is designed to put the states above the federal government, which makes larger government unconstitutional," based on the fact that you keep avoiding answering the question.
Click to expand...
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just saying that the government shouldn't be expanding into legal areas where the states are supposed to be the decision-makers. If you're looking for me to justify the statements that either
a. federal government is superior to state government (where the federal government has dominion) or
b. a large government as in number of services/emloyees is unconstitutional
then I won't justify those, because they're wrong. I'm not trying to argue that those are correct. I'm only trying to say that the government is making laws where it shouldn't be.

Section 8 of the Constitution lays out what the government is allowed to do:
Section 8. 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;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

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;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is the federal government has no right to pass certain laws, such as the prohibition of marijuana, and yet they have. As it is not dictated to the feds under Section 8, under the 10th Amendment the right pass laws about that is reserved to the states.
 
Unless they lump it under the "necessary and proper" clause.
 
I agree, but the feds obviously don't see it that way.
 
Blastoise said:
It's still unconstitutional. And this is really a greater level of democracy, since state can decide state affairs instead of nation deciding state affairs.
Click to expand...

You cannot justify something immoral by saying that it's in the constitution. If the constitution is wrong, maybe it's time for an amendment. If the only evidence of your position that you have is that the other person's position unconstitutional, you're probably wrong.

Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

What a fucked-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?




(Just in case this doesn't come through in the above comment, I'm not actually getting as worked up about this as I may appear to be)
 
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

What a *bleep*ed-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?
Click to expand...

That's similar to saying "Don't live in America if you don't like its laws"
 
Baby Luigi said:
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

What a *bleep*ed-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?
Click to expand...

That's similar to saying "Don't live in America if you don't like its laws"
Click to expand...

It's exactly like saying that.
 
those arab women are such idiots! If they don't like being tormented and severely abused, they shouldn't be living in Saudi Arabia in the first place!

oh wait
 
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
Blastoise said:
It's still unconstitutional. And this is really a greater level of democracy, since state can decide state affairs instead of nation deciding state affairs.
Click to expand...
You cannot justify something immoral by saying that it's in the constitution. If the constitution is wrong, maybe it's time for an amendment. If the only evidence of your position that you have is that the other person's position unconstitutional, you're probably wrong.
Click to expand...
wait what does that have to do with any of what i said

i wasn't talking about immorality at all
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
Blastoise said:
So don't live in Texas if you don't like it.
Click to expand...
What a fucked-up perspective. How about that law they're trying to get passed in Wisconsin that would make single parenting child abuse? 'Don't live in Wisconsin if you don't like it'?
Click to expand...
If it's tyranny by majority... yeah, it might be a good time to leave Wisconsin.

Why exactly is leaving a state for another a big deal...? There's plenty of historical precedent where people up and left because they were being persecuted by their government.
Crocodile Dippy said:
those arab women are such idiots! If they don't like being tormented and severely abused, they shouldn't be living in Saudi Arabia in the first place!

oh wait
Click to expand...
the difference in these two scenarios is that they can't leave, whereas americans can leave for another state rather easily
 
I can't imagine moving interstate - especially by what's more or less force - being a particularly pleasant experience for anyone, no matter the circumstances. Maybe that's just because our states and territories are huge while you guys have way too bloody many, so perhaps it's not as big a deal over there.
 
I transitioned from Georgia to South Carolina with no major change, so...

Perhaps this is just a unique experience?
 
In this economy? There are people who've been trying to move for over a year but can't find someone to buy their home.

And at any rate, my point is that if it's wrong, running away from it won't stop it. It just leaves the people who can't run in an even worse situation.



Also, do you think the average poor single parent in Wisconsin can afford to just up and leave the state?
 
Crocodile Dippy said:
I can't imagine moving interstate - especially by what's more or less force - being a particularly pleasant experience for anyone, no matter the circumstances. Maybe that's just because our states and territories are huge while you guys have way too bloody many, so perhaps it's not as big a deal over there.
Click to expand...

All the states up in the Northeast here are so damn tiny it's ridiculous. I moved from sitting on the Jersey Shore to backwoods Eastern PA and I'm only 60-something miles away from my old home.
 
Gideon Gordon Graves said:
And at any rate, my point is that if it's wrong, running away from it won't stop it. It just leaves the people who can't run in an even worse situation.
Click to expand...
Imagine a group of people going around the country and putting an end to this kind of ignorance.

If you can start an ideological revolution, rallying thousands of people all over the country around an idea, that idea will not be ignored as long as the people fight for it.

Political apathy isn't a good feeling to have, because people fucking can make a difference if the effort is made. Do you know what the ultimate counter to ignorance is? Knowledge.

If tweets from Justin Bieber, stupid cat videos and a Korean man air-fucking a horse can get the attention of a nation, so can people fighting for a cause.

You have to give people a figure to rally around in agreement with. You have to gain followers that fight for a cause and spread it.

If enough people work together, anything is possible. Believe it or not, but there are some people that support these homophobic/racist causes not because they have any real passion for one side or the other, but because they're giving themselves to uniformity. If you can raise those people's eyebrows, even a little, it'll lead them to ask questions. And if you know how to answer them, more than likely, they'll be on your side.

Do you know how much people I've converted from homophobia? From religious intolerance? I met a redneck flying a Confederate flag while walking the other day and in one goddamn conversation I turned around his irrational fear of Muslims and made him realize just how fucking twisted his views were. This might not apply to everyone, but the world isn't as bad as you think.

There's plenty of stupid, ignorant, hateful people that're going to stay that way for the rest of their lives.

But there's much more that're just waiting for the right person to come along and make them fight for the right causes.

Sure, a tiny island of kindness in a raging ocean of hatred isn't going to amount to much. I'd hate to be in that kind of position-
oh, wait
I live in Alabama
I AM in that position.

There's good people in the world. Plenty of them.

It may looks like the bad is all there is sometimes, but if enough people come together to make a difference, anything can happen.

Sitting around and whining about how God has forsaken you and everyone around you are assholes isn't going to do anything.

You gotta stand up and make a difference. Get people to stand up with you and get them to make people stand up, and eventually, not even the most fucking corrupt bureaucrat can look at those people and say "no".
 
Travis Touchdown said:
Do you know how much people I've converted from homophobia?
Click to expand...

Any man you talked to would be seduced by your impeccable charm and instantly become gay themselves
 
Vocal Beat said:
Travis Touchdown said:
irrational fear of Muslims
Click to expand...
I doubt it was irrational.
Click to expand...

yes, fear of muslims is inherently totally rational

like when this guy was so overwhelmed with fear of muslims that he murdered a random innocent man who was neither a muslim, nor possessed of any violent sentiments whatsoever? perfectly rational

honestly, does any thought ever go into anything you post? ever? i doubt it. why dont you stop posting? i think the forum would improve dramatically if you did
 
Alright, both of you stop this line of discussion right there. MM15, you should try to be more self-aware, and think 'is this going to make other people angry?" before you post. 2257, there's no need for such vitrolic remarks (i.e "Why don't you just stop posting?"). Please tone it down in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back