Arnold: GOP out of touch

[Scott & Lai 12]

must change those behaviours, an economy run on unsound principles which has incurred a massive (really really massive) national debt must tighten its belt and change the unsound underpinnings that have broken it - in order to return to a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

I would include in those unsound principles spending more money than is taken in...

The preamble is a clear indicator of Founder intent.

They never intended to found a nation where men preyed on other men.

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

General welfare.

Taking care of the ill is general welfare.

General welfare is actually in the founding document of our country. Those words...... aren't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

must change those behaviours, an economy run on unsound principles which has incurred a massive (really really massive) national debt must tighten its belt and change the unsound underpinnings that have broken it - in order to return to a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

I would include in those unsound principles spending more money than is taken in...

The preamble is a clear indicator of Founder intent.

They never intended to found a nation where men preyed on other men.

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

What is taxation?

[nowhereman 1]

Are you all lumping every single Republican together under one loser-ish view? I don't know why I am asking, because that IS what most of you are doing.

Well when it comes to VJ, yea pretty much. Look at the views of the Republicans here & you will see most are far right. I say throw all of the extremists in a room & let them tear each other apart. The group left standing (the moderates) will then work together to fix the mess we're in.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

Edited February 23, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

Funny how selectivity comes into play when mentioning the Constitution and its intent. If we seek Mr. Madison's advice on the government spending its people's money, we can look at his defense of the constitutional system being devised at the State Conventions- specially his responses to a certain Mr. Patrick Henry.

I did find this snippet that is of interest.

Doesn't bring up exactly the wording we are looking for, but it does mention some key, fundamental aspects about the roles of government and of the intent of commonality as a nation of constituents.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny how selectivity comes into play when mentioning the Constitution and its intent. If we seek Mr. Madison's advice on the government spending its people's money, we can look at his defense of the constitutional system being devised at the State Conventions- specially his responses to a certain Mr. Patrick Henry.

I did find this snippet that is of interest.

Doesn't bring up exactly the wording we are looking for, but it does mention some key, fundamental aspects about the roles of government and of the intent of commonality as a nation of constituents.

No kidding. There's an ability to extract the wisdom in what has been said in the past while disregarding the ignorance or short-sightedness from the same source. Unless someone has the ability to start digging up the Founding Fathers so they can tell us how they really feel, we need to apply reason and discernment when interpreting what they have written.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Dan J 277]

must change those behaviours, an economy run on unsound principles which has incurred a massive (really really massive) national debt must tighten its belt and change the unsound underpinnings that have broken it - in order to return to a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

I would include in those unsound principles spending more money than is taken in...

The preamble is a clear indicator of Founder intent.

They never intended to found a nation where men preyed on other men.

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

You can really take the words of one of the writers as being the intent of the constitution. The constitution was written by a number of people, and with that came compromises in content, wording and interpretation.

Back when the constitution was written, the state governments had most of the power. This was more convenient at the time, both because communication generally took days by courier and many people held on to their immigrant identities allowing more flexibility to have their state reflect the values of their heritage.

I would say that the push for a strong central government came from the need for a common defense, the state militias were often under trained and under geared, and to make interstate trade more efficient.

The country and the world has changed. In interpreting the constitution, we have to understand that. Communications is instant and trade is global. While we can argue about what the founders wanted, we have to be willing to adapt to stay relevant in a modern world.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

must change those behaviours, an economy run on unsound principles which has incurred a massive (really really massive) national debt must tighten its belt and change the unsound underpinnings that have broken it - in order to return to a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

I would include in those unsound principles spending more money than is taken in...

The preamble is a clear indicator of Founder intent.

They never intended to found a nation where men preyed on other men.

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

You can really take the words of one of the writers as being the intent of the constitution. The constitution was written by a number of people, and with that came compromises in content, wording and interpretation.

Back when the constitution was written, the state governments had most of the power. This was more convenient at the time, both because communication generally took days by courier and many people held on to their immigrant identities allowing more flexibility to have their state reflect the values of their heritage.

I would say that the push for a strong central government came from the need for a common defense, the state militias were often under trained and under geared, and to make interstate trade more efficient.

The country and the world has changed. In interpreting the constitution, we have to understand that. Communications is instant and trade is global. While we can argue about what the founders wanted, we have to be willing to adapt to stay relevant in a modern world.

Excellent post, Dan.

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

Are you all lumping every single Republican together under one loser-ish view? I don't know why I am asking, because that IS what most of you are doing.

Well when it comes to VJ, yea pretty much. Look at the views of the Republicans here & you will see most are far right. I say throw all of the extremists in a room & let them tear each other apart. The group left standing (the moderates) will then work together to fix the mess we're in.

i thought that said moderators

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Funny how selectivity comes into play when mentioning the Constitution and its intent. If we seek Mr. Madison's advice on the government spending its people's money, we can look at his defense of the constitutional system being devised at the State Conventions- specially his responses to a certain Mr. Patrick Henry.

I did find this snippet that is of interest.

Doesn't bring up exactly the wording we are looking for, but it does mention some key, fundamental aspects about the roles of government and of the intent of commonality as a nation of constituents.

In regards to taxation, the Constitution as a document, was designed to do what the Articles of Confederation could not do, which was to compel the states to pay by apportionment. That was Madison's arguement. There was no provision for direct taxation until the 16th Amemndment was ratified.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Dan J 277]

must change those behaviours, an economy run on unsound principles which has incurred a massive (really really massive) national debt must tighten its belt and change the unsound underpinnings that have broken it - in order to return to a semblance of fiscal responsibility.

I would include in those unsound principles spending more money than is taken in...

The preamble is a clear indicator of Founder intent.

They never intended to found a nation where men preyed on other men.

You mean like taking bread from one man's table and giving it to another?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

--James Madison, principle author of the Constitution

You can really take the words of one of the writers as being the intent of the constitution. The constitution was written by a number of people, and with that came compromises in content, wording and interpretation.

Back when the constitution was written, the state governments had most of the power. This was more convenient at the time, both because communication generally took days by courier and many people held on to their immigrant identities allowing more flexibility to have their state reflect the values of their heritage.

I would say that the push for a strong central government came from the need for a common defense, the state militias were often under trained and under geared, and to make interstate trade more efficient.

The country and the world has changed. In interpreting the constitution, we have to understand that. Communications is instant and trade is global. While we can argue about what the founders wanted, we have to be willing to adapt to stay relevant in a modern world.

Excellent post, Dan.

I did mean can't in the first line, but only caught it after the edit expired.

[HAL 9000 96]

Funny how selectivity comes into play when mentioning the Constitution and its intent. If we seek Mr. Madison's advice on the government spending its people's money, we can look at his defense of the constitutional system being devised at the State Conventions- specially his responses to a certain Mr. Patrick Henry.

I did find this snippet that is of interest.

Doesn't bring up exactly the wording we are looking for, but it does mention some key, fundamental aspects about the roles of government and of the intent of commonality as a nation of constituents.

No kidding. There's an ability to extract the wisdom in what has been said in the past while disregarding the ignorance or short-sightedness from the same source. Unless someone has the ability to start digging up the Founding Fathers so they can tell us how they really feel, we need to apply reason and discernment when interpreting what they have written.

I wish to clone Thomas J.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny how selectivity comes into play when mentioning the Constitution and its intent. If we seek Mr. Madison's advice on the government spending its people's money, we can look at his defense of the constitutional system being devised at the State Conventions- specially his responses to a certain Mr. Patrick Henry.

I did find this snippet that is of interest.

Doesn't bring up exactly the wording we are looking for, but it does mention some key, fundamental aspects about the roles of government and of the intent of commonality as a nation of constituents.

No kidding. There's an ability to extract the wisdom in what has been said in the past while disregarding the ignorance or short-sightedness from the same source. Unless someone has the ability to start digging up the Founding Fathers so they can tell us how they really feel, we need to apply reason and discernment when interpreting what they have written.

I wish to clone Thomas J.

While you're at it, HAL, can you clone me Martha Washington? I heard she was a real firecracker.

[DEDixon 39]

Even if it was free.... never will be good enough for "we the people" coz "we the people" are never satisfied.