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.
The Constitution charges the Federal Government with responsibility for the common defense.
and general welfare.
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,[note 1] 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.
Too bad concervatives were conditioned like Pavlov' dogs to bark at anything that might benefit general welfare, conservative social darwinism demands the "welfare" to be distributed according to social/wealth rank validating each person' existence.
In 29 states, its still legal to fire employees based on sexual orientation. It can and does happen. Any time a state or local municipality attempts to add sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy, conservatives come out em masse to oppose it.
In some places in the United States its still dangerous for gay people to be out of the closet because of the threat of violence. Families and friends of gay people still disown them when they come out.
Yes. On one hand Conservatives may imply they are "fine" with the differences of others but add "as long as I don't have to ever see them around me". This is not unlike any other discrimination that has existed.
They might say "Oh ______ are FREE to be here", (but coming from a stance of sarcasm and resentment, so no, anyone other than themselves is NOT really free to share the country).
This being only one negative aspect of what is projected. It is difficult to believe that at this phase, the country has to endure this "dark cloud" hanging over it... a backward element wanting to prevent change, deny rights of others and inhibit any progress, overall.
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,[note 1] 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.
Too bad concervatives were conditioned like Pavlov' dogs to bark at anything that might benefit general welfare, conservative social darwinism demands the "welfare" to be distributed according to social/wealth rank validating each person' existence.
Too bad liberals/progressives have no understanding of or respect for the Constitution.
To state the obvious, again, the US Constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal Government. The only powers granted to the Federal Government, per the Constitution, are those powers specificallyenumerated in the Constitution.
The so-called General Welfare Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country. That power is specifically reserved to the states via the 10th Amendment. The so-called General Welfare Clause only permits [the Federal] Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare.
James Madison, the author of the Constitution, stated that the General Welfare Clause merely authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, and not to meet the seemingly unending needs of the general welfare.
The General Welfare Clause has only been interpreted as allowing Congress to spend as it sees fit since 1936. This is one of many cases that SCOTUS has erred, IMO. When the author of the Constitution explains what is meant bt a clause in the Constitution, I see no need for SCOTUS to find an alternate interpretation. No interpretation is necessary. The Constitution was drafted and ratified specifically with the intent and purpose of limiting the power of the Federal Government by explicit enumeration of said government's powers.
In the United States of America, me, a woman born and raised into a lower middle class / poor family was able to move up the income ladder to a pretty damn good life in the upper middle class.
I have rights many women don't have in other countries. I have the freedom to go where I want without a male escort. I married a good man but if that were not the case I could get him out of my life. If I want to go to college no man can stop me. I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment or death.
You have no clue the freedoms AND OPPORTUNITY we have here in the U.S. that other don't enjoy. NO One said it is supposed to be easy but at least if we choose to and willing to put forth the effort we can make a better life for ourselves. I don't know who the hell told people that a good life was supposed to be handed to them but they didn't do you any favors.
Only idiots, freeloaders, losers, lazy people want to give government so much power. Go live in Cuba or something, that was supposed to your form of utopia.
Did you attend college to achieve your accomplishments? Was it a state funded school? Did you take out student loans? Do you drive to work, use public transportation, drink clean water, take medicine to sustain or improve your life, use the park systems, use street lights to make you feel more safe, or eat disease free food? Did you attend public school? You didn't change your fortune all alone.
One final question: Do you have the same contempt for businesses avoiding taxes, offshoring jobs and money while enjoying the resources of this country that you hold for the working single mom, disabled, or elderly individual receiving this so called "good life"?
Too bad liberals/progressives have no understanding of or respect for the Constitution.
To state the obvious, again, the US Constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal Government. The only powers granted to the Federal Government, per the Constitution, are those powers specificallyenumerated in the Constitution.
The so-called General Welfare Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country. That power is specifically reserved to the states via the 10th Amendment. The so-called General Welfare Clause only permits [the Federal] Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare.
James Madison, the author of the Constitution, stated that the General Welfare Clause merely authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, and not to meet the seemingly unending needs of the general welfare.
The General Welfare Clause has only been interpreted as allowing Congress to spend as it sees fit since 1936. This is one of many cases that SCOTUS has erred, IMO. When the author of the Constitution explains what is meant bt a clause in the Constitution, I see no need for SCOTUS to find an alternate interpretation. No interpretation is necessary. The Constitution was drafted and ratified specifically with the intent and purpose of limiting the power of the Federal Government by explicit enumeration of said government's powers.
If you feel it necessary, try to get the court to hear your argument. Obviously, you don't understand the Constitution. The matter was decided by the US Supreme Court. Your recourse is to try the case again or lobby to pass a new law restricting these programs in an effort to win a fourth legal challenge. The first three cases failed; therefore, per the Constitution, the law is constitutional--regardless of your personal interpretations! Read the parts of the Consitution you seemed to have missed to brush up on the process of our system.
It might also be an asset to stop quoting from one person in our history and attempting to interject your interpretation of their thoughts on modern day challenges.
In the United States of America, me, a woman born and raised into a lower middle class / poor family was able to move up the income ladder to a pretty damn good life in the upper middle class.
I have rights many women don't have in other countries. I have the freedom to go where I want without a male escort. I married a good man but if that were not the case I could get him out of my life. If I want to go to college no man can stop me. I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment or death.
You have no clue the freedoms AND OPPORTUNITY we have here in the U.S. that other don't enjoy. NO One said it is supposed to be easy but at least if we choose to and willing to put forth the effort we can make a better life for ourselves. I don't know who the hell told people that a good life was supposed to be handed to them but they didn't do you any favors.
Only idiots, freeloaders, losers, lazy people want to give government so much power. Go live in Cuba or something, that was supposed to your form of utopia.
Why are you so angry? This is a thread about what you like about the country. You said it & I agree with your answer. No need to go off on some welfare rant.
And I notice, only 2 have answered the question, the rest have come on here to deflect & insult. How hard can it be to answer a question of why you love this country?
Last edited by thefragile; 10-12-2015 at 07:16 AM..
Exactly. To conservatives who say they love freedom and liberty, question is, whose freedom?
Everyone's
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Do you support the freedom of people to practice non-Christian religions including Islam?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Do you support the freedom of people to be atheist?
Yes again. But I do not support the "freedom from religion" groups. I'm not a religious guy at all. Outside of weddings and funerals, I haven't been to church since sometime in the early 1980's. If I go to a sporting event and there is a prayer, I stand and bow my head in respect for the others who are more into it. If I went to a bah mitzvah, I would take part in any prayer out of respect to the people who invited me. Having religion around me doesn't impact me in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Do you support the freedom of people who have a different sexual orientation than you to be who they are without fear of losing their jobs?
Government jobs? Yes. Private sector jobs? Employers have rights also. I work for a global corporation with 65,000 employees and our handbook clearly states that you can't be fired for sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Liberals aren't trying to change America. Liberals simply accept the FACT that America has changed and support a more fair and just America for its citizens today. Throughout all of American history, the only constant is progress. We aren't the same nation we were when Dwight Eisenhower was in the Oval Office. Conservatives want to turn back the clock 60 years but time only goes forward. They may love America as it was then but they hate it as it is now.
The only thing I'm trying to do politically is get government at every level to do what their governing documents allow them to do on only what they allow. That means the feds follow the Constitution. That means the state government follows its Constitution. That means the county government follows its charter. That means the city government follows its article of incorporation.
Welfare was mentioned earlier in this thread. Am I against it? No. Am I against the federal government giving out welfare? Yes. It should be a state issue if the state Constitution has that power. If not, it goes to the county level. If not there, then the city. If no government document provides the power for welfare in a city then there is no welfare. Would that happen? Probably not. Someone at some level would step up and fill the gap.
In the United States of America, me, a woman born and raised into a lower middle class / poor family was able to move up the income ladder to a pretty damn good life in the upper middle class.
I have rights many women don't have in other countries. I have the freedom to go where I want without a male escort. I married a good man but if that were not the case I could get him out of my life. If I want to go to college no man can stop me. I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment or death.
You have no clue the freedoms AND OPPORTUNITY we have here in the U.S. that other don't enjoy. NO One said it is supposed to be easy but at least if we choose to and willing to put forth the effort we can make a better life for ourselves. I don't know who the hell told people that a good life was supposed to be handed to them but they didn't do you any favors.
Only idiots, freeloaders, losers, lazy people want to give government so much power. Go live in Cuba or something, that was supposed to your form of utopia.
Excuse me, but if it were NOT for the government's insistence that women be given equal treatment before the law, you would NOT be able to do those things. In fact, at various times during the history of the United States women were denied all of the rights you listed ... and many others even within the life times of millions of women alive today, myself included.
Like many conservatives, you see only the negative side of government power, primarily because you labor under the illusion that without government intervention everybody would play nice and treat other people well even though history is overfull of proof of just the opposite, the most grievous example of which in the US was the century of Jim Crow practice in the South that denied Blacks not merely their political rights but their basic human rights as well.
BTW, it's only been in the last twenty years or so that women have been protected from spousal rape, to various degrees, throughout the US thanks to the government and its laws that you think only harms you. But, hey, that kind of thing doesn't happen to white, upper middle class women, right? It only happens to "idiots, freeloaders, losers," and "lazy people".
they love complaining about America not being there's until they get their guy in the WH.
Then they somehow love the country again and scream "Amurrrica "effe yeah."
It's so odd seeing them whine over spending and wars but as soon as their guy is in office they have a million and one excuses why we need to spend MORE money to keep us safe...
safe like W, after the attacks of course. But not safe like Obama, who hasn't had any major terrorist attacks but somehow made this country less safe.
what's even crazier... is a lot of Dems do the exact same thing when a GOP wins the WH.
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.
