Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

[Incisor]

Actually, we do apply 18th century thinking to our daily life, in fact, the United States is built on 18th Century thinking in the form of the Constitution, which dictates what our government can and cannot do, and is a basis for our legal system both criminal and civil.

Point went right over your head.

 

[Incisor]

oh?... so the constitution of 18th century, can have a total different meaning in the 21st?

YES! In fact, the Constitution has been amended 27 times to reflect new meanings. Like slavery, for instance.

 

[Master PO]

No, it gives their opinion on the clauses. But if their opinion were fact, then there wouldn't have been a need for the Federalist Papers, would there?

wrong, when a person creates something he knows it ,he's an authority on it.

margaret mitchell did not give opinion on "gone with the wind"

 

[Master PO]

YES! In fact, the Constitution has been amended 27 times to reflect new meanings. Like slavery, for instance.

:lamo....i said meaning..... the meaning of the constitution, the law

 

[Ockham]

Point went right over your head.

Yeah, my answer was a tough one. I don't blame you for bailing.

 

[countryboy]

I can't get to your video tonight, but want to comment on the Dem-GOP thing:

For all the noise and BS the GOP make about Dems lacking in fiscal responsibility, I believe the GOP are worse, and a historical glance at the federal deficit by party in power will bear this out. At least the Dems don't claim superior fiscal responsibility, which actually wins me over a bit.

But, enough party rant.

Related, I predict Trump with the GOP are going to spend like we haven't seen in many years! Everything Trump and the Congress have been signaling for their to-do list is, is staggering in terms of the deficit. Rabid spending, coupled with tax cuts (who's gonna' pay?), all supposedly going to be made-up by their vision of the revenue that will flow due to their superior governance.

I am not optimistic.

All this deficit spending should make the MMTers happy, right? Oh wait, wrong side doing the spending.....never mind.

 

[jaeger19]

Jaeger : losing arguments :: Hiroo Onoda : WWII.

Well than it should be easy to refute it John.

So go ahead.. please refute my position.

I claim that if you know WHAT people feel about their confidence in the economy and what they FEEL about making future purchases... that this give you power in deciding whether to expand your business.. regardless of whether you know or they know WHY they feel that way.

Please logically refute that position.

Should be easy since its a losing argument as you claim.

(this will be fun.)

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well than it should be easy to refute it John.

So go ahead.. please refute my position.

I claim that if you know WHAT people feel about their confidence in the economy and what they FEEL about making future purchases... that this give you power in deciding whether to expand your business.. regardless of whether you know or they know WHY they feel that way.

Please logically refute that position.

Should be easy since its a losing argument as you claim.

(this will be fun.)

Your position has already been refuted a bunch of times. My post was to point out that, no matter how many times it is refuted, you still stick with your position. Just like old Hiroo.

Every instance you gave of "consumer confidence" had an underlying cause that preceded it. That is enough proof right there.

How was consumer confidence before the financial crisis? It was pretty high, right up until just after the crash. People were buying homes right up until the crash. Few people saw what was coming, and people didn't listen to the few that did. Yet we crashed anyway, because of the numbers. All the consumer confidence in the world couldn't solve that problem.

Your argument is a lot like claiming that you knew before it happened that you were going to crash your car - right after the moment you slammed on your brakes and went into a skid.

 

[Incisor]

wrong, when a person creates something he knows it ,he's an authority on it.

Madison was not the only one who created it. There were Constitutional Conventions and Madison had to fight with other Founders about what the documents would be. That's why he wrote the federalist papers. You wouldn't say that George Lucas should have the final word when it comes to Star Wars, would you? I think we can all agree on that, after the prequels and Jar-Jar.

 

[Incisor]

:lamo....i said meaning..... the meaning of the constitution, the law

The meaning is open to interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court to weigh those meanings. To say that the Constitution should be followed within the narrow view of one of the members who signed his name to it is myopic.

 

[Master PO]

Madison was not the only one who created it. There were Constitutional Conventions and Madison had to fight with other Founders about what the documents would be. That's why he wrote the federalist papers. You wouldn't say that George Lucas should have the final word when it comes to Star Wars, would you? I think we can all agree on that, after the prequels and Jar-Jar.

the federalist were written after the convention to explain the clauses to the constitution by Madison, jay, and Hamilton, and also to explain the problems of the AOC.

when someone creates something or part of its creation, they don't render an opinion about it, but facts.

 

[Master PO]

The meaning is open to interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court to weigh those meanings. To say that the Constitution should be followed within the narrow view of one of the members who signed his name to it is myopic.

oh, so when the constitution says the congress can create a navy, thats open to interpretation?

the wording of the constitution means the same as it did when it was created, if certain parts of the constitution are changed by amendments then the meaning can change, but the constitution as a whole does not change because it 2017 as compared to 1787 when it was created.

 

[Incisor]

the federalist were written after the convention to explain the clauses to the constitution by Madison, jay, and Hamilton, and also to explain the problems of the AOC.

Right...so just like I said...they were opinion pieces. And their opinions weren't strong enough to convince the other members of the Constitutional Conventions and Congress to accept them. Hence, why they wrote the Federalist Papers. You acknowledge that, right?

when someone creates something or part of its creation, they don't render an opinion about it, but facts.

OMG...are you kidding? It's impossible to be impartial about something you created. You can only have a subjective view of it. Yeesh.

 

[Master PO]

Right...so just like I said...they were opinion pieces. And their opinions weren't strong enough to convince the other members of the Constitutional Conventions and Congress to accept them. Hence, why they wrote the Federalist Papers. You acknowledge that, right?




OMG...are you kidding? It's impossible to be impartial about something you created. You can only have a subjective view of it. Yeesh.

they are facts

 

[Incisor]

oh, so when the constitution says the congress can create a navy, thats open to interpretation?

Several of the Founders opposed a standing military. Some things are more explicit than others. That was by design and why it took years for them to settle on a document that would be amended 27 more times.

he wording of the constitution means the same as it did when it was created

Not really. And this is getting back to the 18th-Century thinking that I touched on earlier. To think that the Founders in the 18th Century had the clairvoyance to see what America would become 240 years later is a joke and not to be taken seriously.

if certain parts of the constitution are changed by amendments then the meaning can change, but the constitution as a whole does not change because it 2017 as compared to 1787 when it was created.

Any part of the Constitution can change so long as 2/3 of the states ratify it. Hence why it has been amended 27 times...to reflect new realities like slavery being bad.

 

[Master PO]

Several of the Founders opposed a standing military. Some things are more explicit than others. That was by design and why it took years for them to settle on a document that would be amended 27 more times.

this has nothing to do with my question, nothing.




Not really. And this is getting back to the 18th-Century thinking that I touched on earlier. To think that the Founders in the 18th Century had the clairvoyance to see what America would become 240 years later is a joke and not to be taken seriously.

oh please tell me, what words in our constitution have a different meaning today then they had 200 years ago.




Any part of the Constitution can change so long as 2/3 of the states ratify it. Hence why it has been amended 27 times...to reflect new realities like slavery being bad.

again this have nothing to do with my post,

what words of the constitution when written mean something else today, because the words meaning changed in the last 200 years?

 

[Incisor]

they are facts

Facts and opinion are not the same thing. Problem is the right-wing has pounded into the heads of some folks that they are...that you can be right so long as you believe it. There's a word for that..."truthiness".

 

[Master PO]

Facts and opinion are not the same thing. Problem is the right-wing has pounded into the heads of some folks that they are...that you can be right so long as you believe it. There's a word for that..."truthiness".

thats correct, a fact is objective, opinions are subjective

the federalist are facts because its written by men who created our constitution and understand the clauses when they were created from proposals at the convention

 

[Incisor]

this has nothing to do with my question, nothing.

It does, you just don't want to have anything to do with it. Sucks to be you.

oh please tell me, what words in our constitution have a different meaning today then they had 200 years ago.

Well, you can look at the second amendment for starters. But really, most of the document can be interpreted in different ways. That's why we have a Supreme Court. That's their job.

what words of the constitution when written mean something else today, because the words meaning changed in the last 200 years?

Try and look at it this way; in the 1700's, people used to treat medical conditions with leeches and bloodletting...that was considered "health care" back then. Of course, health care has an entirely different meaning today, as we use chemotherapy to treat cancer. They purposely kept things vague in the Constitution for just that specific reason...that circumstances change, and new realities have to be taken into consideration.

 

[Incisor]

thats correct, a fact is objective, opinions are subjective

Right, so when someone creates something...like the Constitution or a Star Wars movie, how can that someone possibly be objective about it?

the federalist are facts

No they aren't. They're opinions. Facts are not opinions. If they were fact, they'd be in the friggin' document, wouldn't they? But they're not. The Federalists had a hissy fit because their narrow view of what America should be did not align with the view of the other members of the Constitutional Convention and Congress, and they lost out because they were in the minority. How many times did Madison re-write the Constitution? Dozens? Hundreds?

 

[Incisor]

he federalist are facts because its written by men who created our constitution and understand the clauses when they were created from proposals at the convention

Just because you write something doesn't mean it will end up being what you had originally planned. You can see that all the time in literature, movies, music, and even governing documents. Again, this is why we have a Supreme Court.

 

[Master PO]

It does, you just don't want to have anything to do with it. Sucks to be you.

its make no sense, i asked you , since the constitution states the congress can create a navy, .........how can that meaning change in 200 years?




Well, you can look at the second amendment for starters. But really, most of the document can be interpreted in different ways. That's why we have a Supreme Court. That's their job.

oh, i asked what words, are different then 200 years ago.....what words have a different meaning?




Try and look at it this way; in the 1700's, people used to treat medical conditions with leeches and bloodletting...that was considered "health care" back then. Of course, health care has an entirely different meaning today, as we use chemotherapy to treat cancer. They purposely kept things vague in the Constitution for just that specific reason...that circumstances change, and new realities have to be taken into consideration.

again this makes no since at all......please state the vagueness of the constitution

the constitution is a document which creates federalism, it divides powers between the states and the federal government, enumerating powers for the federal government on paper, with all other powers which are states power not enumerated.

the constitution also recognizes rights and secures them by placing restrictions on the powers of the federal government

 

[Incisor]

again this makes no since at all......please state the vagueness of the constitution

It makes sense, you just refuse to accept it no matter how plainly it can be said.

 

[Master PO]

Right, so when someone creates something...like the Constitution or a Star Wars movie, how can that someone possibly be objective about it?

because its their OWN creation.




No they aren't. They're opinions. Facts are not opinions. If they were fact, they'd be in the friggin' document, wouldn't they? But they're not. The Federalists had a hissy fit because their narrow view of what America should be did not align with the view of the other members of the Constitutional Convention and Congress, and they lost out because they were in the minority. How many times did Madison re-write the Constitution? Dozens? Hundreds?

they are facts, because the men who created the constitution were there

 

[Master PO]

It makes sense, you just refuse to accept it no matter how plainly it can be said.

please state the vagueness of the constitution.