Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 12-26-2010, 07:00 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
By this logic you are indeed a certified socialist who holds to the idea the Constitution is not the foundation of the gov and it is mold able to the whims of the congress.

BTW they did indeed plan for change and it is called the amendment process. Not some judge sitting in a courtroom dictation what they think it means.

BTW the FBI does redistribute wealth. Are there FBI office in every major city? Are there more in area with more crime? The fact is Farmer Joe in Kansas sends his dollars to DC who than sends those dollars to Leroy in Detroit because crime is worse there. This is high school civics man. DId you have a football coach for a teacher or what. That was not meant as an insult I just find it the typical result of those whoa re not educated on this subject. I used to adjunct Political science and history and most this is the case.

Since we are going to paint with such a broad brush...Farmer Joe in Kansas has no problem taking government money in agricultural subsidies. We give over 10 times the amount of money to that every year than we do to the FBI in federal tax dollars.

The FBI has offices in every major city/district and they focus on crime nationwide not just where crime rates are higher. They lock up BAD people and enforce laws that are federally mandated. If we are going to have ANY federal laws at all, then it only makes sense to have an agency that enforces those laws. Should we let states decide for themselves if it's okay to enforce counterfeiting laws? How about child rape laws? Wasn't there a judge in Vermont a couple years ago who thought probation was suitable for sodomizing an 8 year old?

You calling me a "certified socialist" as if to imply that I want the government to control every aspect of our life is ridiculous. I don't claim to have all the answers about policies or think that everything is run perfectly, but there are certain things I believe we are better off having some sort of central oversight on than not having it, and that's just my opinion. That's too much in the middle for some people, but that's just how I feel.

I also never claimed to be an expert on the constitution, and I certainly never taught political science. I may be undereducated on certain aspects of it, but I'm certainly not uneducated. I do think that over time there have been things that have HAD to change since the constitution was written and considering all of the founding fathers who wrote it are DEAD, there is little way of knowing exactly what each of them would say about each specific situation in today's world.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-26-2010, 08:07 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
Since we are going to paint with such a broad brush...Farmer Joe in Kansas has no problem taking government money in agricultural subsidies. We give over 10 times the amount of money to that every year than we do to the FBI in federal tax dollars.

The FBI has offices in every major city/district and they focus on crime nationwide not just where crime rates are higher. They lock up BAD people and enforce laws that are federally mandated. If we are going to have ANY federal laws at all, then it only makes sense to have an agency that enforces those laws. Should we let states decide for themselves if it's okay to enforce counterfeiting laws? How about child rape laws? Wasn't there a judge in Vermont a couple years ago who thought probation was suitable for sodomizing an 8 year old?

You calling me a "certified socialist" as if to imply that I want the government to control every aspect of our life is ridiculous. I don't claim to have all the answers about policies or think that everything is run perfectly, but there are certain things I believe we are better off having some sort of central oversight on than not having it, and that's just my opinion. That's too much in the middle for some people, but that's just how I feel.

I also never claimed to be an expert on the constitution, and I certainly never taught political science. I may be undereducated on certain aspects of it, but I'm certainly not uneducated. I do think that over time there have been things that have HAD to change since the constitution was written and considering all of the founding fathers who wrote it are DEAD, there is little way of knowing exactly what each of them would say about each specific situation in today's world.
Everything in your rant JB can be done by local agencies and the feds are not needed. We do nto need any central oversight and to have DC take a slice. BTW the subsidy thing is also extremely unconstitution as well. And very socialistic.

Also we can know exaclty what the founder intended because they told us in their letters and their papers. ALso they released commentaries to their pecedings to avoid mis understanding. SO you are very wrnog in that case. Today we have judges making it up as they go.

I guess we will just need to agree to disagree because none of this has anything really to do with the topic at hand. Have a great New Year JB
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-26-2010, 08:38 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Everything in your rant JB can be done by local agencies and the feds are not needed. We do nto need any central oversight and to have DC take a slice. BTW the subsidy thing is also extremely unconstitution as well. And very socialistic.
I don't think we need the feds in everything, but I do think they should be in some things. The point about farm subsidies was simply that there are farmers like "Farmer Joe" who would argue why we need that. I don't think we need to pay out money to a lot of the agencies we do, but I also don't think think the fact that I support some things makes me a "certified socialist" under the premise of which you are implying.

Quote:
Also we can know exaclty what the founder intended because they told us in their letters and their papers. ALso they released commentaries to their pecedings to avoid mis understanding. SO you are very wrnog in that case. Today we have judges making it up as they go.
I'm not denying that there is evidence of what the founding fathers had intended when they wrote the constitution. I'm saying that there is no way of actually knowing how they would feel about some of the things we have in today's society that they could not have possibly foreseen. Of course, we have an idea about how they felt when it comes to a large number of basic principles, but times change, people change, and things constantly become more complicated.

Quote:
I guess we will just need to agree to disagree because none of this has anything really to do with the topic at hand. Have a great New Year JB
It's just a discussion forum, and issues tend flow into each other. You mentioned Ron Paul and the Constitution, so I was originally just commenting on that. My intent wasn't to derail the topic at hand, but it happens. No hard feelings?

I hope you have a Happy New Year too.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:27 PM
Rev
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-26-2010, 09:58 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev View Post
I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.


Happy New Year Rev
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:26 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev View Post
I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.
You are right you caught us. The whole gay thing made us think about whigs and we digressed. SOrry Rev to disappoint you. I will go to my closet now and flogg myself for your shame.

Happy New Year to you too brother!!!
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:38 AM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I see it now...

Pink Berets...
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:06 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco View Post
I see it now...

Pink Berets...
Actually that was the joke when Clinton passed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Back in 1993, everyone in the military understood that DADT wasn't a ban on homosexuals in the military, because that ban already existed. The whole point of DADT was to create a loophole that would allow gays to serve.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:17 PM
TENNESSEAN's Avatar
TENNESSEAN TENNESSEAN is offline
LESS TALK MORE ACTION
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Actually that was the joke when Clinton passed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Back in 1993, everyone in the military understood that DADT wasn't a ban on homosexuals in the military, because that ban already existed. The whole point of DADT was to create a loophole that would allow gays to serve.
i can remember being mad about dadt when Clinton pulled it out of his hat. never would have dreamed one day i would be defending it.

See how this works? baby steps.

Last edited by TENNESSEAN; 12-27-2010 at 05:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:11 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AS someone already showed on here that civil rights do not apply to military service so maybe they can just go back to an outright man......wishful thinking
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.