I had a really long response typed out explaining my credentials and exactly why I know a lot about our tax structure, why your posting of pictures of hipsters proves nothing, why Reaganomics has failed us, and why the article I posted really isn’t an opinion, then I hit a button and it got erased.
I’m not typing it again. I don’t know why I try so hard to reason with people on here. It’s futile.
At the end of the day, I just can’t believe that regular middle-class people hate these protesters when they’re working for our interests. The only people who shouldn’t support them are the super rich that these protesters are fighting. So honestly, I have absolutely no respect for the people who have hated on these protests. It just shows how brainwashed you really are. The media, the culture you live in, or something actually has you believing that you shouldn’t support the people whose interests are aligned with yours.
Your head is so far up your ass it’s astonishing, junior.
Little johnny worked really hard all week and brings $3.00 to buy lunch at middle school, I only have 1.50 (which is enough for lunch), should a teacher have the right to confiscate Johnnys money to subsidize my lunch?
Also, answer me this… What is the negative effect on me when somebody EARNS more money than I do?? Please take your time to articulate your argument.
I don’t think they are against Johnny bringing $3.00 that he earned to buy lunch. They are against the class bully who has $50.00 but still has to steal a dollar from every student so that they can’t afford their lunch. Unfortunately this bully’s parents have connections with the school principal, and if the teachers try to stop him they run the risk of getting fired.
Unless they screwed you over to make it or outbid you on something you wanted, there is none. If you look at it on a macro level in a world of scarce resources, then yes it harms you, but one person does not.
Well? Which is it? Do you want the federal government to do a whole fuck ton of stuff not within the enumerated powers of the constitution, or do you want to follow the constitution? You can’t have both.
I stand by my view of them all being a bunch of fucking fucks.
Depends on if you’re a strict or loose constructionist. None of those things are forbidden by the constitution. Loose construction says the government can assume certain rights and responsibilities as long as they’re not expressly forbidden. IMO strict interpretation of a 250 year old document is pretty shortsighted and narrow for modern society.
PATRIOT act = direct violation of bill of rights = qualifies for #7. #3, 5, 6, 9 = Not.
How is doing something that isn’t strictly enumerated in the constitution, violating it?
The constitution is just a framework for government, not a full catalog of all of it’s policies and laws. Besides, the items you described would be covered by Article 1 section 8.
Right there at the end of the bill of rights. That was meant to prevent the federal government from growing too large. It would work too if people didn’t think bullshit like the constitution is a “living document” or a “framework” or can be “loosely interpereted.” It is the supreme LAW of the land. The second you make it flexible you an bend it to the whim of any majority and our republic goes out the window.
Elastic clause. Believe that’s the section that superfan was referencing.
While we’re at it, the Electoral College violates equal protection of voters. If they really want open, transparent elections shitcanning it should be on their list. One man, one vote. There’s no reason a vote for president in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia should mean something, but a vote in New York, California, Texas, and pretty much the whole South is useless. Only reason it was in there in the first place despite the contradiction was a compromise after some of the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to elect the President :picard:
Right, so that’s why Madison fought so vigorously for the inclusion of the elastic clause*, and said “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter”?
*one could argue the first clause on powers of congress applies as well, specifically on taxation and general welfare.
Read Federalist 44. Madison explains that that clause is meant to grant congress the particular powers necessary to exercise the general powers enumerated by the constitution.
So which enumerated powers require the things the occupiers are demanding in order to be exercised?
Which enumerated responsibility of congress requires that the federal government provide healthcare to all citizens in order to be executed?
So long OWS. You’re upset about legit problems, but hopefull you’ve learned that it takes more than sitting around complaining about the general conditions to enact change. The right to protest is a marvelous thing, but with rights come responsibilities. With the right to protest comes the responsibility to bring actionable demands.
