Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Gee, I thought every elected federal representative takes an oath to uphold; not the president, not the flag, not the country; but the constitution. We could use more Constitutionalism in D.C.

At least you're consistent in deriving your authority from old, mostly irrelevant, and often taken out of context writings....


The bible constitution bible constitution says so, and that's all there is to it!!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Now who argues just that all the time here. That would me.

The Left that screams about the loss of individual liberty when it comes to the Patriot Act or armed SWAT teams on the streets of Boston is entirely blind to the loss of someone's individual liberty in every tax increase, in 17 trillion dollars of debt that will be paid by someone, in regulations that smother job growth and opportunity, health care mandates, affirmative action laws, rules about seatbelts & light bulbs & toliets and the size of soda cups, etc, etc, etc.

The Welfare State is just as injurious to personal liberty as the Security State. Only the latter has a constitutional mandate however.

-- R Reagan

For such a religious person, it's rather carnal of you to think that freedom is measured with money.

Your grand vision for America is a tax cut.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Gee, I thought every elected federal representative takes an oath to uphold; not the president, not the flag, not the country; but the constitution. We could use more Constitutionalism in D.C.


Yes, or as leftwing as they like. With a free people left to decide through self-governance.
By the way, there would be no United States or Constitution without the Bill of Rights which the states insisted on to curb the power of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment that reserved those powers not directly enumerated to the federal government as belonging to the states and the people was crucial to ratification.
Now we act like it doesn't exist except in the mind of "scary wingnut's."


Now haven't you heard, it's not a mandate it's a tax and of course governments can tax.

This was nicely bookended, I have to say, in terms of where you're not seeing the forest, Indy. The taxing power is Constitutional, and Roberts making the HC mandate a "tax" made it as Constitutional as SS and Medicare. I didn't agree with it but I've long been 'over it'. It's the law, we carry on.

And yet where Ron Paul and his Constitutionalist argument takes this - is he argues that it is not a power granted in the Constitution...and yet it IS a tax for a service rendered for the "welfare" of the country. And all of that is IN the Constitution and very much upheld as constitutional.

But Ron Paul's ideology is not really strict Constitutionalism. It's using the Constitution as a crutch to argue for specific policy. Maybe I should have put it in quotes. "Constitutionalism" = Ron Paul's Libertarianism. Whereas strict Constitutionalism would have very little to say about policy and is probably a term that might only apply to certain legal stances, not policy. I am not entirely sure about the semantics of that.

There is a much longer answer that I should toss out there maybe tomorrow. A post where I shred Ron Paul's "libertarianism" and expose it for what it is. It's not principled regarding ALL liberty granted to us by God or the Constitution. It's ideological regarding specific liberty (policy)...and when the Constitution can be used as political rhetoric, he'll use it. And he'll get a bunch of flag-wearing and waving 'patriots' to agree with him. And then when it comes to something like Social Security - suddenly he doesn't agree with the taxing power (re: "welfare") which is very much in the Constitution. Again, only using it as a crutch when it suits his political argument.

So anyhow...
You agree that people get to decide on our own governance. And yet every other post of yours is bitching about using the taxing power for "fairness". We can use the taxing power how we see fit. That's basically the deal. You may not like it. I may not like it. But we choose that direction in elections.

We, the people, TELL the Federal Government what to do. We ARE the government. It's only when people disagree with the current policy that suddenly Govt is too big. And yet ALL of them, Republicans, Democrats alike, participate in deficit spending. And a Govt that is anything but small. I've said it before myself - "it's too big" (or whatever), but I've continued to explore, and read, and remain curious about more empirical truths - while carrying no ideology towards the raw economics. It becomes clearer to me all the time.

We have the size of Govt we have because that is what the people, almost ALL of them, want - even if they say they don't - it's only because of their own ignorance they don't realize they want the big Govt.

I'll just close with this - as pretty much a civil libertarian, there is a big difference, to me, between Big Govt (spending us into dire straits) and intrusive Govt, which was why I was against the HC mandate. One Govt just needs to decide to fund itself or scale back. The other is actually, truly scary.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Three of his friends charged with destroying/concealing evidence and making false statements. They allegedly got rid of his backpack that had fireworks in it, and his laptop. Backpack was recovered in a landfill, no word on the laptop.

[deep]

here's an article

Lawyers say 2 charged in connection with Boston bomb case didn’t know of attack plans - The Washington Post

looks like the kind of legal fireworks I have bought in the past

surprising if that stuff plus BBs that can be bought anywhere, and a $29 six quart pressure cooker did all that damage.

[MrsSpringsteen]

My understanding is that they used material extracted from the fireworks. And nails too, not just bbs.

One of them texted him and said he looked like the bomber, and he said LOL. Then he tells them he'll be "going" and to take whatever they want from his room..don't text him.

White hat got the Unabomber's /movie theater killer's lawyer. On the taxpayer dime, unless she's working for free.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

White hat got the Unabomber's /movie theater killer's lawyer. On the taxpayer dime, unless she's working for free.

A public defender? Why would that be surprising or anything to get upset about?

[anitram]

He has a public defender but the capital punishment expert is almost certainly doing this on a pro bono basis. Nobody of that caliber would be a public defender.

[Hewson]

He has 3 public defenders plus the capital punishment expert.

[Jive Turkey]

Why do you guys suspect the capital punishment expert is doing it pro bono? Free exposure? Because it's challenging?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

This was nicely bookended, I have to say, in terms of where you're not seeing the forest, Indy. The taxing power is Constitutional, and Roberts making the HC mandate a "tax" made it as Constitutional as SS and Medicare. I didn't agree with it but I've long been 'over it'. It's the law, we carry on.

And yet where Ron Paul and his Constitutionalist argument takes this - is he argues that it is not a power granted in the Constitution...and yet it IS a tax for a service rendered for the "welfare" of the country. And all of that is IN the Constitution and very much upheld as constitutional.

This is really the wrong thread so we should probably cut this off but thanks for the discussion. I’ll just respond to your thought on “the welfare of the country.”
Surely it’s counterintuitive to think that the framers of the Constitution spent so much effort enumerating the powers of the federal government, creating a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government as well as between the federal and state governments – to then provide a sweeping, unlimited power to “provide for the general welfare” that basically renders all limits non-binding and powerless. No one arguing at the Constitution Convention ever argued that it did. So the conservative looks at original intent and finds that the federal government cannot tax and spend as they please under the umbrella of “general welfare” and legislation that does is unconstitutional and any court that allows it is misguided.

So anyhow...
You agree that people get to decide on our own governance. And yet every other post of yours is bitching about using the taxing power for "fairness". We can use the taxing power how we see fit. That's basically the deal. You may not like it. I may not like it. But we choose that direction in elections.

Not as intended by the constitution. Good luck finding in the Constitution authorization to tax for the purpose of the redistribution of private property solely to achieve “fairness.”

We, the people, TELL the Federal Government what to do. We ARE the government. It's only when people disagree with the current policy that suddenly Govt is too big.

This worked fine when we were self-sufficient families immersed in a vibrant civil society living most of our lives outside the realm of government. But in 2013 government is ubiquitous and involved in every aspect of life. The Life of Julia details how government helps women at every step of their life. Obama is all about “you didn’t build that” because he thinks all prosperity flows from government planning. At the DNC convention they played a video declaring “government is the only thing we all belong to.”

DNC Video: "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" - YouTube

Such sentiments are both historically and literally un-American. Given our record levels of dependency, the unyielding regulations of the nanny state and the exploding cost of the government; at what point do we cease to be sovereign citizens and become subjects of the state?

We have the size of Govt we have because that is what the people, almost ALL of them, want - even if they say they don't - it's only because of their own ignorance they don't realize they want the big Govt.

I think we can agree that it helps immensely that we haven’t yet paid for our big government to the tune of 17 trillion dollars. But to your point, we do in fact get the government we deserve.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[U2DMfan]

You're right. We're off topic here...just one more comment.

Whether it was intended or not, what is and isn't constitutional is essentially chosen by the democratic process as well. If we really, really wanted to overturn Social Security (for a great example) - as so many conservatives hold that it is unconstitutional - we would, as a people, elect conservative Presidents to appoint conservative justices and in a relatively short period of time, it could be undone fairly easily.

But then every Republican in office at the time it happened would lose their next election. Because the super vast majority of their constituents want it to be in place. Funny how those constitutional principles work in actual 'practice'. It suddenly depends on what specific type of 'Big Govt' we're talking about, doesn't it?

If you want to continue the discussion - just bump your entropy thread, I'll follow.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Obama is all about “you didn’t build that” because he thinks all prosperity flows from government planning.

It'd be easier to take your arguments seriously if you didn't sprinkle these intellectually lazy statements throughout them.

[CrashedCarDriver]

If anything
This whole situation has brought a part of the world which people know very little about

I knew nothing about the caucasus mountains, except for stalin's great purge

Those three Russian subjects: Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushestia (Abkhazia) have always caused troubles in Russia and they no-go zones

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It'd be easier to take your arguments seriously if you didn't sprinkle these intellectually lazy statements throughout them.

I don't think that point-of-view is particularly lazy. There is a train of thought which says that the government provides for a certain amount of prosperity -- by either ruling the economy heavily via taxation, manipulation of interest rates and/or the Federal Reserve, or outright regulation, or by loosening said restrictions. It's fairly clear that the President has a government-centric approach that regulates the free-market system within limits. Those limits are very different whether you are a Republican or a Democratic President, but the limits exist. Ergo, the President is governing according to his view, that from government flows the fortunes of man. INDY clearly argues for a different view.

We can always be reductionist about "the other side," but the differences do exist and are clear. The merits of either position can be well-argued, but you can't say that they don't exist, nor that it's intellectually lazy to recognize them. Reductionist, perhaps, but not lazy. And reductionism on this board happens with alarming regularity.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I don't think that point-of-view is particularly lazy. There is a train of thought which says that the government provides for a certain amount of prosperity -- by either ruling the economy heavily via taxation, manipulation of interest rates and/or the Federal Reserve, or outright regulation, or by loosening said restrictions. It's fairly clear that the President has a government-centric approach that regulates the free-market system within limits. Those limits are very different whether you are a Republican or a Democratic President, but the limits exist. Ergo, the President is governing according to his view, that from government flows the fortunes of man. INDY clearly argues for a different view.

We can always be reductionist about "the other side," but the differences do exist and are clear. The merits of either position can be well-argued, but you can't say that they don't exist, nor that it's intellectually lazy to recognize them. Reductionist, perhaps, but not lazy. And reductionism on this board happens with alarming regularity.

Even by your definition INDY's post was lazy. No one can be honest with themselves and think that Obama believes ALL prosperity flows from government, it just doesn't reflect in his policy. All or nothing comments are intellectually lazy when it comes to debate, unfortunately it's the route INDY usually takes.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

All or nothing comments are intellectually lazy when it comes to debate, unfortunately it's the route INDY usually takes.

...Only INDY?

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just find it disingenuous to come down on one side of the discussion for being intellectually lazy, when the reality is that, in FYM, such reductionism and intellectual laziness are hallmarks of many of these debates.

Maybe we should all agree to avoid "always" and "never" phrases in the future; the world is too complicated for that.

[PhilsFan]

I prefer when INDY opts for a comic in which a pair of ears make a strawman argument.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

...Only INDY?

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just find it disingenuous to come down on one side of the discussion for being intellectually lazy, when the reality is that, in FYM, such reductionism and intellectual laziness are hallmarks of many of these debates.

Maybe we should all agree to avoid "always" and "never" phrases in the future; the world is too complicated for that.

Absolutely, but I don't make it a point to defend those "always" and "never" comments. Someone pointed out INDY's laziness and you for some reason decided to defend it. Your response was reasonable and thought out, it was just a shame that it was in response to someone pointing out that poster's intellectual dishonesty.

[The_Pac_Mule]

Any thoughts on the Rolling Stone cover?