Occupy Wall Street.. I was there

[jackdale]

"When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle.

I am not sure the original inhabitants were convinced it was "conceived in liberty" after they faced the muskets and rifles.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Quite simply, that's bullsh!t. I won't deny some (even a large number) on the right want to use all the words, but generalising across the more vocal of the right-wing makes that line worth less than the electrons it used to get to my screen.

I don't even need to wade into the (obvious) right-wing selectivity when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Didn't I just say that, BS? Why are you arguing with me and calling it BS when I agreed with you that many conservatives take liberties in their interpretations of the Constitution? My point was that, in doing so, conservatives generally are no more or less intellectually dishonest than Libs generally, because many Libs do the exact same thing. Don't you think it's a slight oversimplification to think that all conservatives are devils and all Libs are angels? Why does everything have to be an argument? The first step toward an open mind is always the hardest. After that, it gets easier.

[erps]

I think the wording is "...promote..." rather than "...provide..". But either way, that's a dandy approach to drive just about any truck the executive or legislative branch wished through that hole. How about the controversial health care law?

and right after promoting the general welfare phrase is the following phrase of securing liberty for ourselves. Those two can conflict, as with the individual mandate of the health care act. From my perspective, when there is a conflict between the two, the default ought to go towards individual liberty. One can always give up liberty later for the general welfare, but once it's given up, it's hard to get back.

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by Rick486

I think the wording is "...promote..." rather than "...provide..". But either way, that's a dandy approach to drive just about any truck the executive or legislative branch wished through that hole. How about the controversial health care law? Why not just fit it in under the preamble? Or how about Gitmo detainment? Promotes the general welfare to lock up terrorists, right? Somehow my instinct tells me it's not quite that simple. As for school lunches, I would imagine it has never been challenged. Which state would challenge free money falling from the sky? Er, well except for that annoying deficit issue.

Utah would be one of the states that challenged the federal government. That one was over the mandate to test students every year under the no child left behind act. Utah decided that the money granted didn't cover the cost of yearly testing, so they decided to test every other year. The supreme court sided with Utah but it didn't really stop much.

There is a bigger test coming on the Obama care law. The states are challenging the changes in medicare. Currently, the legal opinion is that as long as the states can opt out, it's not an unfunded mandate. That might change it might not.

The school lunch program is otherwise constitutional in that districts can opt out, it's just that it's been tied to a bunch of other grants that mean stripping the local district of of funding for all kinds of things.

A classic example of this in action was Winter park in Florida wound up taking federal money to build a new library, donating their five year old library to a private college. They did this to keep other federal monies, road funding in particular, coming.

But it's not limited to the federal government. Again in Florida, back in 06, the state past a law limiting how much the counties could charge in property taxes. This lowered the county portion in a few counties, but the state raised the amount of property taxes the counties had to collect for the state. The State also cut road, school and other funding, but didn't change the requirements on what the counties had to provide.

Same problem here in north Texas. We need more roads, rail, and buses but the state won't allow the counties to raise certain taxes and fees. Not that that stops them from putting mandates on what we have to provide in schools and county services.

We'll see if the supreme court re-opens old case law and sees the current situation for what it is, or if they continue on the same path of letting the Federal government take money from the states population then hold the state government hostage unless the are willing to go along to the letter to get their peoples money back. It's either that, or you would need to get a bunch of states to pull out of something in protest.

[Sailormon6]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I am not sure the original inhabitants were convinced it was "conceived in liberty" after they faced the muskets and rifles.

Yes, some of our forefathers committed some vile acts, but it appears that yours did too. http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

Didn't I just say that, BS? Why are you arguing with me and calling it BS when I agreed with you that many conservatives take liberties in their interpretations of the Constitution? My point was that, in doing so, conservatives generally are no more or less intellectually dishonest that Libs generally, because many Libs do the exact same thing.

In the post I quoted (generally an indication as to what one is responding to ), you DIDN'T say that - you actually said the opposite. That you have since nuanced your point of view (or expressed the nuance if you like) doesn't change what I was actually responding to.

The status of the thread when I initially downloaded it (~7am this morning or about five hours ago) had no such finesse on your position. I don't make a habit of refreshing threads constantly to see if people have changed their minds on what they said and I don't get the time to read all the threads SailNet informs me have changed immediately. I simply click the links in the emails first thing and get around to reading the thread as time permits.

My apologies if it upset you that I responded to your position five hours ago as opposed to the one you are now arguing. My time is limited and, frankly, I've more important things to do than to check for the unlikely occurrence of someone changing their mind in regards to what they think of right & left wing ideology.

Don't you think it's a slight oversimplification to think that all conservatives are devils and all Libs are angels?

I do. And I think the same about it's opposite (that the conservatives are angels and libs devils), hence my negative response to your post. You will note I even acknowledge in my post on the matter that there are a large number of right-wingers that do want to keep to the exact & complete words of the historic legislation. The over-simplistic generalisation was not in my post

Why does everything have to be an argument? The first step toward an open mind is always the hardest. After that, it gets easier.

Congratulations. Now you know the theory, you only need to internalise it