- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Do you believe anyone objects to what individuals do?FYI, here are some sweet factoids about social welfare in America:
Social Welfare Developments in the 1700s - Social Welfare History Project
Before America even existed, Benjamin Franklin helped found the Pennsylvania Hospital:
It was free of charge, of course, funded by the donations of citizens from the great city of the state. That being said, probably the most famous founding father in history created a hospital that was free of charge. In fact, according to Penn Medicine:
Pennsylvania Hospital History: Historical Timeline - Benjamin Franklin
And more:
Benjamin Franklin | The Philanthropy Hall of Fame | The Philanthropy Roundtable
Holy ****, what a socialist!!!
More from the Social Welfare site:
In 1789, the government decided to give aid to veterans:
More free money to people in need? Crazy!!!!!!!! And more:
In 1795, Thomas Mother****ing Paine thought socialism was pretty tight:
Honestly, Conservative, you might want to move, because clearly the Founders just weren't what you thought. It's all been a lie!
Should I keep digging? Do we want to learn about other founding fathers, and the steps they took for the social well-being of our nation?
You just accused the entire Republican caucus of being so bigoted they refused tom work with Obama because he was black.
So what Republicans haven't been successful with blacks, when was the last time the Democrats elected a black president.
never give up making excuses and arguing red herrings, you would not be a Democrat otherwise
All of those powers still exist - so I'd say it compares just fine. You can take the tinfoil hat off now.
Do you believe anyone objects to what individuals do?
What does the Constitution allow?
I never doubted that you would fail to answer honestly. You are a liberal, after all.
I believe you know better. The government has unlimited funds. The government can just print more. Walmart does not have unlimited funds. It was cheaper to settle than to do the right thing and fight. Loser pays would help. Limiting the funds available to go after anyone the feds want to would also help.That's one interpretation, a rather generous one not supported by facts, but one. Here's another, they were guilty and wanted it settled.
When I was in the third grade much of this was still true. The states have not had a role since they lost their power over their senators.
I am surprised you failed to mention that the entire Constitution is written to limit the federal government. That too, is from the third grade.
Now do the second half of the assignment. You have given the textbook answer, partially. How does it compare to today?
Gee, I thought it was common knowledge that the very basic nature of the Constitution is to protect us, the people, from the government. It outlines what the government can do and, quite explicitly, says that the federal government does not have the power to do anything that the Constitution does not give it the power to do.
Obviously (well, to those that are honest with themselves) today's government has gone completely off the rails and violates the Constitution every day. And thus, it violates or rights and freedoms. And gee, go figure, that's why our government is such a mess and we loath it.
Why am I not answering honestly? The three branches still exist, as does the Bill of Rights, and senators and representatives elected by each state still comprise the Federal government. It's the exact same.
I believe you know better. The government has unlimited funds. The government can just print more. Walmart does not have unlimited funds. It was cheaper to settle than to do the right thing and fight. Loser pays would help. Limiting the funds available to go after anyone the feds want to would also help.
I believe this is another indication of just how much you and others on the left support tyranny.
Nothing is the same. Article one has long since been abandoned. The federal government does whatever it wants. We have 500 independent agencies all making laws, acting as police, and juries. We have an imperial president who makes laws and changes existing laws.
The people are no longer governed. The people are ruled.
The states have no say in the federal government. They should control their senators. Progressives managed to convince the people to give up that safeguard. And now, one hundred years later the end of liberty for the people is at hand.
I do not understand why those on the left enjoy the prospect of the death of the nation so eagerly. Can you explain?
Why do we call those few men the founders? Does it have anything to do with the US Constitution?Misterveritis - you shouldn't jump into conversations if you don't know what they are about. This was in response to Conservative and the lady who has the cattle horns as her avatar, who both believed they knew exactly how all of the Founding Fathers felt about social programs and health care. Turns out, they didn't know anything.
The states have no say in the federal government. They should control their senators. Progressives managed to convince the people to give up that safeguard. And now, one hundred years later the end of liberty for the people is at hand.
"Do you believe anyone objects to what individuals do?
What does the Constitution allow?"
Why do we call those few men the founders? Does it have anything to do with the US Constitution?
Their individual actions of largess are immaterial to what they thought about coercing the citizens to pay for that which individuals and families ought to do for themselves.
It turns out they know quite a bit about what is relevant.
I do call and email my representative regularly. Senator Sessions is on the correct side, that is to say the Constitutional side, of every issue I have followed.A bit over the top, eh? Why don't you just call you state elected senators/representatives? Take your frustration on Obama out on them, instead of making weird rants on a message board. Executive privilege isn't my favorite either, but it existed long before Obama.
Other than that, I don't see what it is you have to complain about.
What does the civil war have to do with this discussion?If only the Confederates had won the civil war.
Nothing is the same. Article one has long since been abandoned. The federal government does whatever it wants. We have 500 independent agencies all making laws, acting as police, and juries. We have an imperial president who makes laws and changes existing laws.
The people are no longer governed. The people are ruled.
The states have no say in the federal government. They should control their senators. Progressives managed to convince the people to give up that safeguard. And now, one hundred years later the end of liberty for the people is at hand.
I do not understand why those on the left enjoy the prospect of the death of the nation so eagerly. Can you explain?
Really? So you believe it is okay for a federal government to spend many millions of dollars to bully a private entity?Oh, and they don't use them up on these things, and Walmart isn't exactly fundless.
Wal-Mart to Pay $11 Million
Chain Settles Illegal-Worker Investigation
Wal-Mart to Pay $11 Million (washingtonpost.com)
But Wal-Mart admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it was unaware contractors were employing illegal immigrants.
I suppose to one why may not have ever lived in a free country wanting the Constitutional balance of powers restored cannot make sense. What part do you believe is wrong? What can't the federal government do? What are its limits?Yes I can explain--you get off on hyperbole. That is the only explanation for your post that makes sense.
FYI, here are some sweet factoids about social welfare in America:
Social Welfare Developments in the 1700s - Social Welfare History Project
Before America even existed, Benjamin Franklin helped found the Pennsylvania Hospital:
It was free of charge, of course, funded by the donations of citizens from the great city of the state. That being said, probably the most famous founding father in history created a hospital that was free of charge. In fact, according to Penn Medicine:
Pennsylvania Hospital History: Historical Timeline - Benjamin Franklin
And more:
Benjamin Franklin | The Philanthropy Hall of Fame | The Philanthropy Roundtable
Holy ****, what a socialist!!!
More from the Social Welfare site:
In 1789, the government decided to give aid to veterans:
More free money to people in need? Crazy!!!!!!!! And more:
In 1795, Thomas Mother****ing Paine thought socialism was pretty tight:
Honestly, Conservative, you might want to move, because clearly the Founders just weren't what you thought. It's all been a lie!
Should I keep digging? Do we want to learn about other founding fathers, and the steps they took for the social well-being of our nation?
Please, enlighten us on it. Show us how the Founding Fathers were against the idea of nationalized health care - a topic that couldn't have crossed their minds because it didn't exist yet.
What does the civil war have to do with this discussion?
Naw, I live in TX where personal responsibility is respected and valued. You live in an alternative universe with an 18 trillion dollar debt and massive central govt. Our Part time legislature is just like the Founders created
I accept your concession. Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?