Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not care if both sides supported something,both sides care little about what is the federal government's responsibilities.
I do not care about anyone in Africa either,I simply want the federal gov't to do what it is Constitutionally madated to do and NOTHING ELSE.
I am glad you don't have an issue with helping Vets off the streets,please do as much as you can to help them on your own dime.
Wow. Get off your high horse. Those vets are what enables you to get all preachy about the Constitution in the first place. Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has a different interpretation of your Madisonian view, but we can leave that for another thread.
Wow. Get off your high horse. Those vets are what enables you to get all preachy about the Constitution in the first place. Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has a different interpretation of your Madisonian view, but we can leave that for another thread.
Unless it is in the Constitution, it is not the federal government's business.
I guess the Constitution isn't THAT important to you.
I believe the USSC at one time considered slavery okay...
I know. I love it when people say that stuff. Well, they should not let terrorists in their neighborhood. They get blown up in the crossfire, their own fault, shrug. Well illegals should overthrow their own governments. They get mowed down by the military, at least they died for a noble cause, shrug. People say this sipping their Starbuck's lattes on the way to the supermarket before they stop for their PTA meeting. First of all, we are the only country stupid enough to sell guns like hamburgers, and secondly maybe some of those people don't want to play freedom fighter or sacrifice their lives for a noble cause. Maybe they just want to live their lives. A lot of real courageous typists we have around here.
Who else should be responsible for their situation?
Interesting that you are opposed to the Bill Of Rights.
You personally know a majority of the people who live in inner-cities, and they all "whine and complain and demand others take care of them," do they? You must have an amazingly wide swath of aquaintances. And... aren't "others" supposed to be taking care of them, the ones they pay tax money for, aka "the police?"
No, people shouldn't rely on police to keep them safe from crime, if they don't make the "choice" to become freelance vigilantes then they're merely apathetic, cowardly ******* who deserve what they get, in right-wing fantasy land.
No I try and stay away from those who cannot or will not improve their own lives.
If the people who live in these neighborhoods would perhaps contact the police and actually participate in making THEIR neighborhoods better you might have a point,but that doesn't seem to be the case.
And no youshould NOT rely solely on the police to keep you safe,only a fool would do so.
I know. I love it when people say that stuff. Well, they should not let terrorists in their neighborhood. They get blown up in the crossfire, their own fault, shrug. Well illegals should overthrow their own governments. They get mowed down by the military, at least they died for a noble cause, shrug. People say this sipping their Starbuck's lattes on the way to the supermarket before they stop for their PTA meeting. First of all, we are the only country stupid enough to sell guns like hamburgers, and secondly maybe some of those people don't want to play freedom fighter or sacrifice their lives for a noble cause. Maybe they just want to live their lives. A lot of real courageous typists we have around here.
This is instructive. You and fish complain when the US gets involved in trying to bring peace and democracy to oppressed people, and now you mock those who say that the Palestinians' plight is of their own doing, that we can't solve it for them, and that thye need to take responsibility for the miserable situation they have largely created for themselves...
This is instructive. You and fish complain when the US gets involved in trying to bring peace and democracy to oppressed people, and now you mock those who say that the Palestinians' plight is of their own doing, that we can't solve it for them, and that thye need to take responsibility for the miserable situation they have largely created for themselves...
I believe this might be an example of the illogical nature of emotion driven individuals.
People should stop being afraid and let go of the idea of a nanny state taking care of them.
But very clever people realised long ago to pander to the weaknesses of the people.
The difficulty I have with "strict" interpertation, as you so desire, is - the Constitution was written over 200 years ago - when our great founders did not, nor could not, envision life in the 21st Century. Strict interpertation would require no standing military. No fighter aircraft. No satellite intelligence.
They could not envision instant - real time, communication. Could not envision the advances in technology or healthcare. They could not envision automobiles, or airplanes - with the ability to go between countries in hours versus months.
I'm sorry but, I cannot agree to "strict interpertation" of the Constitution. I do agree though that the States should take the forefront of government - not the Feds.
The difficulty I have with "strict" interpertation, as you so desire, is - the Constitution was written over 200 years ago - when our great founders did not, nor could not, envision life in the 21st Century. Strict interpertation would require no standing military. No fighter aircraft. No satellite intelligence.
They could not envision instant - real time, communication. Could not envision the advances in technology or healthcare. They could not envision automobiles, or airplanes - with the ability to go between countries in hours versus months.
I'm sorry but, I cannot agree to "strict interpertation" of the Constitution. I do agree though that the States should take the forefront of government - not the Feds.
I fail to see where your opinion is supported,simply because there were no fighter planes doesn't mean that such things would be restricted.
Congress has the power to raise and maintain an army....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
