Mind Your Business! a penny for your thoughts.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

no no your mistaken some amendments are necessary but that's not always the case.

there are some people who say some amendments are not necessary such as the assault on the second amendment.

the point being made is any amendment given can be taken away on a whim.

I don't recall the second amendment ever in any jeapordy.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

post what you want i posted my thoughts and i have been challenged on them

Hint: I DID NOT challenge ANY of your thoughts, you challenged mine.

reply to post by kro32


a common misconception when the constitution was written those people thought somewhat different that we do now.

the general welfare clause in the us constitution means the power given to government to tax to fund the government so it can function.

those early americans more often than not looked to no one to step in and those early americans

truly understood what freedom and independence meant and any time government steps in history has shown time and time again people lose some of their freedoms and become more dependent on others than themselves.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kro32

 

a common misconception when the constitution was written those people thought somewhat different that we do now.

the general welfare clause in the us constitution means the power given to government to tax to fund the government so it can function.

those early americans more often than naught looked to no one to step in and those early americans

truly understood what freedom and independence meant and any time government steps in history has shown time and time agaun people lose some of their freedoms and become more dependent on others than themselves.

edit on 25-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Incorrect. If that was their reason for stating "to promote the general welfare" they would have had no need to delegate that exact power later on in the Constitution.

And the founding fathers fought tooth and nail when they were forming the government and the Constitution. Hamilton and Jefferson had completely different ideas about what freedom and independence were and to imply that they were on the same side whatsoever is a fallicy.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

post what you want i posted my thoughts and i have been challenged on them

feel free to challenge anything you want

that in itself is showing how we have ended up where were are right now.

wouldn't you think

diverging schools of thought are what have led us to this moment in time.

Why are you so afraid of others that think differently than you; of a challenge to your Beck and Rush, copy and past ideology. Take a walk on the wild side; explore new modes of thinking and break out of the constipated mind set of Fox news.

neo96
those early americans more often than not looked to no one to step in and those early americans

truly understood what freedom and independence meant.

Yeah, unless you were a black slave, indentured servant or a native American, to be forced off their ancestral lands and put on a reservation.

Your idealized image of Early America is very distorted.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

post what you want i posted my thoughts and i have been challenged on them

feel free to challenge anything you want

that in itself is showing how we have ended up where were are right now.

wouldn't you think

diverging schools of thought are what have led us to this moment in time.

Why are you so afraid of others that think differently than you; of a challenge to your Beck and Rush, copy and past ideology. Take a walk on the wild side; explore new modes of thinking and break out of the constipated mind set of Fox news.

I like Bill O' Reilly

reply to post by whaaa


i seem to recall many african americans and native americans fighting for independence in the revolutionary war.


and honestly i am quite tired of every post you make is always a personal attack no matter where i go

its always the same its always

so i am done.

carry on.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by whaaa

 

i seem to recall many african americans and native americans fighting for independence in the revolutionary war.

And I seem to recall slavery existing until the emancipation proclamation was signed and America being built on the backs of black people....some independence.

www.pbs.org...

There is no personal attack here....just reality.

reply to post by kro32


nope not incorrect:

general welfare does not equate to social welfare

www.reasontofreedom.com...

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

reply to post by whaaa


am i sitting here and denying slavery existed in the country no

the fact is all those evil slave owners are the reason that you even exist today


seem your all about hatred just hate me for slavery its all my fault.

its been nothing but personal attacks from you do you want me to quote the posts?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kro32

 

nope not incorrect:

general welfate does not equate to social welfare

www.reasontofreedom.com...

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

When discussing the Constitution you should never use a website as your source. Let's discuss the original language. It's not a clause by the way it's actually in the Preamble. Here you go.

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now how you get the power to tax out of that is a stretch. There is also no need as later in the constitution it states this:

Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debs and prvide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

Now if they allow for general welfare in regards to taxes in article 1 than they obviously meant something different with the general welfare in the Preamble.

So yes I'm correct.

reply to post by kro32


lol no general welfare does not mean social welfare

we will never come to an agreement on that.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by whaaa

 

seem your all about hatred just hate me for slavery its all my fault.

Hyperbole much....I don't hate you and I don't think slavery is your fault. I just think you have a distorted view of history and want to rewrite it so that Americas dark past is forgotten and ignored.

And what a hypocrite you are. You attack people also and ridicule their opinions, just like you did mine early on in your thread, You asked for opinions but you really only wanted agreement.

i have seriously just lost all respect for you

I'm not looking for respect. I'm looking for truth.

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kro32

 

lol no general welfare does not mean social welfare

we will never come to an agreement on that.

I never stated I think that's what it means I simply stated that you could argue for entitlement programs under this statement.

It is non-specific, possibly for a reason, so it could include social welfare. The writers of the Constitution purposefully left many things vague, such as the power of war, so that future Congress's could adjust to the times as necessary.

reply to post by whaaa


ah telling me what to do eh

and just how many anti republican threads have you authored on this website?

distorted view eh.

hyperbole indeed.
hypocrite indeed,

reply to post by kro32


you can not legislate wealth and success based off the constitution

the rob from the rich give to the poor and theres something also called property rights where the rights of a minority can not and shall not be taken from them and given to the majority

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by kro32

 

you can not legislate wealth and success based off the constitution

the rob from the rich give to the poor and theres something also called property rights where the rights of a minorty can not and shall not be taken from them and given to the majority

edit on 25-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I have no idea what your referring to here. No where does the Constitution talk about legislating wealth and I never brought that up.

Social programs are there for specific purposes not to promote or deny wealth to any individuals. There is a relevant mandate in the Constitution for it to be legislated for however. That is what is brilliant about the Constitution as it covers all bases.

The things the founded fathers had absolutely no doubt about are not left up to interpretation and are clearly spelled out. There is no reference to the formation of regulatory agencies or social programs as they realized they could not put every situation that may arise into the Constitution. They left a guideline which our government needs to follow and nothing in your original post goes against what the founding fathers laid out.

Originally posted by neo96
hypocrite indeed,

Odd you would refer to THE SAME member that way when you initially replied:

Originally posted by neo96
its all fair game in this thread post your own thoughts of where america is going wrong left or right doesnt matter

If someone says one thing but doesn't really mean it....there's a name for that. :shk:

I suppose you were looking for replies strictly from like minded narrow myopic thinkers?

Double standard much? Perhaps thread starting isn't a forté and you should stick to your usual drive-bys.

reply to post by kinda kurious


what is the topic of this thread?

hint its not neo96

reply to post by kro32


welfare in any form is legislating wealth

promoting dependency is against everything in the constitution

i am done

so i am moving on

carry on