If the Feds Won't Do It...

They protest frank end of life discussions as 'Death Panels'. One can not articulate their position. It makes no sense. Smaller government yet unlimited health care for the elderly. ............. Why would the other side ever give up any of their pet projects if you guys won't? Originally Posted by WTF

The reality is while there are some true small government advocates out there, they are the small minority. Truth be told most people want small government with the large exception of any program that applies to them. They may not admit it (and even scream at the top of their lungs to the contrary) but it is the truth.....

......just build washing machines and then dump them in the ocean!

. Originally Posted by WTF

We can always count on WTF for colorful, original analogies and expressions.

The Constitution gives the sole power to declare war to the Congress which, in the Johnson administration began the process of legislating a transfer of that power to the executive. That was unconstitutional but as far as I know, was never tested on the Supreme Court level.
Therefore, the war in Kosovo, Iraq and Afganistan are all unconstitutional and should not be funded.
Arguments as to precipitous pulling out are another story altogether but the fact is, we shouldn't have been in any of those places w/o Congressional mandates.

The Constitution gives the sole power to declare war to the Congress which, in the Johnson administration began the process of legislating a transfer of that power to the executive. That was unconstitutional but as far as I know, was never tested on the Supreme Court level.
Therefore, the war in Kosovo, Iraq and Afganistan are all unconstitutional and should not be funded.
Arguments as to precipitous pulling out are another story altogether but the fact is, we shouldn't have been in any of those places w/o Congressional mandates. Originally Posted by John Bull

Now that is some Tea Party shit I can agree with!

somehow or other there is just such a great divide in our thought processes its too diffcult to even comprehend your points

things you say are nonsensical to me Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

It is really a simple concept. You say as a Tea Party person that you want smaller government. Yet you (the Tea Party movement) does not want to cut military spending or even aid to the elderly.

The other side does. It wants to insure ALL its citizens with those kind of cuts. Yet the right screams bloody murder or as Sara Palin would say "Death Panels".

It is really a simple concept. You say as a Tea Party person that you want smaller government. Yet you (the Tea Party movement) does not want to cut military spending or even aid to the elderly.

The other side does. It wants to insure ALL its citizens with those kind of cuts. Yet the right screams bloody murder or as Sara Palin would say "Death Panels". Originally Posted by WTF

Geez, I want some of the dope your smok'n there WTF.
Show me all the cuts the other side is doing?

Geez, I want some of the dope your smok'n there WTF.
Show me all the cuts the other side is doing? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Neither side is a cuttn! That is my point.








Come to Pigeon Forge Tenn this weekend, I'll share!

The other side does. It wants to insure ALL its citizens with those kind of cuts. Originally Posted by WTF

Neither side is a cuttn! That is my point. Originally Posted by WTF

Oh?? It's that pesky reading between the lines that's tough on me. Silly me, I just read what is written.

What are you doing in Tenn?

Oh?? It's that pesky reading between the lines that's tough on me. Silly me, I just read what is written.

What are you doing in Tenn? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I meant that the other side 'does' want to cut military spending and exploding end of life care. Shit the left don't wanna cut none of their pet projects! We both smart enough to know dat!


I'm hiking in the Smoky Mountains...to damn much rain down here.

It is really a simple concept. You say as a Tea Party person that you want smaller government. Yet you (the Tea Party movement) does not want to cut military spending or even aid to the elderly.

The other side does. Originally Posted by WTF

Shoulda said "the other side does wanna cut those programs..... For example it wants to take the saving from those end of life care and then insure ALL Americans''

I'm not saying right or wrong but that is really what they tried to do with this health care caca.

In a similar vein to the Fed vs State debate.

On Thursday the Federal district court in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act violated the 10th Amendment which declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states. This argument is most often used by Conservatives and decried by Liberals. An interesting twist on the usual.

In a similar vein to the Fed vs State debate.

On Thursday the Federal district court in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act violated the 10th Amendment which declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states. This argument is most often used by Conservatives and decried by Liberals. An interesting twist on the usual. Originally Posted by discreetgent

A good decision. The Feds don't need to be involved in marriage.

The Feds don't need to be involved in marriage. Originally Posted by pjorourke

And (for the sake of a weekend argument ) the states? If the Feds don't have the right, do the states?

It is not simply a question of anyone ought to be able to marry however they want. I can say I am married to a monkey, or my car, or a beetle in my yard, or the wind. But a "legal marriage" carries with it certain "legal benefits and obligations". It is established by law...not by whim.

If the Feds don't have the right to "legalize" a "Legal Marriage"...do the states? Frankly, I agree with the ruling...it is not a Fed issue. But I also believe that it is a State issue..and that a state has the right to determine what is a "Legal marriage". And one state may define that differently than another.

There. That ought to get the pundits posting. Happy now, Ans?

Frankly, I agree with the ruling...it is not a Fed issue. But I also believe that it is a State issue..and that a state has the right to determine what is a "Legal marriage". And one state may define that differently than another. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That is in fact what I meant.

So far we are all in agreement - amazing lol

I know there is a concept of state reciprocity. Anyone here know what the details are: is it voluntary? constitutionally based?

That is in fact what I meant. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So far we are all in agreement - amazing lol Originally Posted by discreetgent

You all are no F**k'n fun.

A little different twist from a twisted soul.

If the states want to recognize civil partnerships of whatever nature - OK! But they have no business getting involved with what is a holy, church sacrement. The states should, of course, recognize the legality of the sacrement but it's none of their damned business what the various churches recognize and bless, each in their own way. Put another way: marriage is a church thing; civil partnerships belong to the state.