Obama in bed with Insurance Co.
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
The diff between you and AK is that you don't need to put your opponents on ignore. By the way, he doesn't need you to defend him (if that is your intent). I never considered you the type of rabid Obama butt boy that AK has shown himself to be. Was I wrong? As far as what I have to say...discussion with his type, and maybe yours, is pointless. For a while I enjoyed my discussions with Ak, but I was mistaken about how far to the left he was. I've enjoyed my discussions with you in the past, as well. You seemed pretty reasonable on a lot of issues. Are they over? Are you a committed socialist, too? Yea or nay?
I will end my verbal baiting of Ak here and now. Just disappointed to see how far to the left he really was. I thought he was OK for a time.
1. Have a good evening
2.I didn't answer because its hypothetical and the chances of it happening are so low its not worth debating imo
3.Many consider the guys I mentioned the founders but if you consider everyone that voted to ratify the Constitution founders I understand that many do.All the founders did not agree on everything,there was much compromise in getting the constitution passed and Madison opinions were not the same as everyone who voted to ratify the constitution.The fact that Madison went in detail about his feelings on the general welfare clause after it was ratified but not put it in the constitution itself suggest he knew he wouldn't have the votes if he did imo.
I disagree that that general welfare clause is not open to interpretation.You see it the way you want to see it and ignore not only citizens but Presidents,Congressmen and Supreme court Justices that see it differently from you.
You have pointed out Madison's opinion of the general welfare clause but Alexander Hamilton had a different interpretation
"The terms 'general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the 'General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition."-Alexander Hamilton
The two primary authors of The Federalist set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations(of the general welfare clause):
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
I'm not rabid Obama or anyone. My personal policy is very fiscally conservative and very socialy liberal. I've told family who wanted money from me if you want to eat then go to work and watched loved ones go without. I'm not a hard ass by nature but sometimes you gotta be. For gov. policy I'm for being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But I am also for some of our social programs, the obvious ones like fire and police, road construction, schools(but I would be open to private school vouchers if done properly), social security but a scaled down version from what we have now. Work programs for men instead of blanket welfare. On the far social side I am for single payer insurance, the alternative to this would be some type of regation to honest up the health industry and the health insurance industry. My main gripe with the far right is their attitude that anyone who doesn't agree almost 100% with them is some how not a real American. But your righ if you knew me and worked around me you'd think I was a rightie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton#Constitution_and_Federalist_Papers
At the end of the Convention, (Alexander) Hamilton was still not content with the final form of the Constitution, but signed it anyway as a vast improvement over the Articles of Confederation, and urged his fellow delegates to do so also.[55] Since the other two members of the New York delegation, Lansing and Yates, had already withdrawn, Hamilton was the only New York signer to the United States Constitution. He then took a highly active part in the successful campaign for the document's ratification in New York in 1788, which was a crucial step in its national ratification.
The two primary authors of The Federalist set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
Quote from wjk:
The diff between you and AK is that you don't need to put your opponents on ignore. By the way, he doesn't need you to defend him (if that is your intent). I never considered you the type of rabid Obama butt boy that AK has shown himself to be. Was I wrong? As far as what I have to say...discussion with his type, and maybe yours, is pointless. For a while I enjoyed my discussions with Ak, but I was mistaken about how far to the left he was. I've enjoyed my discussions with you in the past, as well. You seemed pretty reasonable on a lot of issues. Are they over? Are you a committed socialist, too? Yea or nay?
I will end my verbal baiting of Ak here and now. Just disappointed to see how far to the left he really was. I thought he was OK for a time.
I hope you are doing well wjk,I wish you nothing but the best
The diff between you and AK is that you don't need to put your opponents on ignore. By the way, he doesn't need you to defend him (if that is your intent). I never considered you the type of rabid Obama butt boy that AK has shown himself to be. Was I wrong? As far as what I have to say...discussion with his type, and maybe yours, is pointless. For a while I enjoyed my discussions with Ak, but I was mistaken about how far to the left he was. I've enjoyed my discussions with you in the past, as well. You seemed pretty reasonable on a lot of issues. Are they over? Are you a committed socialist, too? Yea or nay?
I will end my verbal baiting of Ak here and now. Just disappointed to see how far to the left he really was. I thought he was OK for a time.
I hope you are doing well wjk,I wish you nothing but the best