Politico: Tea Party, Down But Not Out, Plans 2016 Comeback

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oooo, we like to put words in peoples mouths... I never said anything about FEMA nor anything about National Emergency.
I said disaster support is something everyone would agree on as long as it was not abused.
I never specified how it would be delivered or under what conditions.

OK then, who (if not FEMA) organizes and dispenses Federal disaster support?

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO. ]]

Well, that's too bad, Luis.

"RINO" is what it is. A term that accurately describes a political critter, one that is doing great damage to the body politic.

You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.

Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 1:  The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ...;

I'm not sure how one excises just disaster relief from the concept of "general welfare".

Hamilton argued that to interpret the General Welfare Clause as "an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare" (Federalist #41) the way that you just did, makes the enumeration of specific powers that make up the remainder of the Constitution unnecessary and even absurd.

Why grant any Branch of the Federal government any power when any act that they take be interpreted to be necessary for the General Welfare of the nation?

The pertinent part of the Constitution is the enumeration of specific powers granted to the Federal government by the several States.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO. ]]

Well, that's too bad, Luis.

"RINO" is what it is. A term that accurately describes a political critter, one that is doing great damage to the body politic.

You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.

Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!

That says a whole lot more about you than it does about me sir.

[Fishrrman]

[[ That says a whole lot more about you than it does about me sir. ]]

"Frankly... I don't give a damn!"
(apologies to whoever that guy was...)  ;)

Addendum:
I don't think politics should be civil, or polite.
I don't expect, nor do I WANT, to be that way towards others who would, if they could, take all I have, worked, and saved for. Who would put dissenters or those "uncorrect" into camps -- or worse.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
"Politics is war conducted by other means." (to paraphrase that guy von Clauswitz).

I recall reading about a time either just prior or not long after the War Between the States, when there were actual fisticuffs in Congress. That's just fine with me. I'd like to see more of it.
I think one of the great moments of modern politics was when Joe Wilson shouted "you lie!" at Obama at that state-of-the-union back about six years ago. We definitely more people like him in government.

Fishrrman working on his keyboard:

[Formerly Once-Ler]

That's a SATIRE site.  Come on, man.  Rand Paul never said those things.  I typically look forward to your posts, but you got WHOOSHED on that one, Once-ler!   

Ouch.
Nevermind.

[EdinVA]

Did you support the Federal DoMA?

IMHO, the defense of marriage act was a direct result of years of social engineering at the federal and state level.
For example, God created the IRS, and thus created exemptions to reward people for acceptable behavior (marriage, kids, houses, RV's, Boats, etc) .
The states followed suite and enhanced the engineering (death benefits, hospital visitation, reward for kids, etc).

Those that were not married were not only denied "benefits" awarded to married and in fact, are actually penalized and put less of a strain on the infrastructure (schools, etc).  Of course this is all changing now with more single parents.

So I believe if it were not for all of the "rewards" for good behavior, we would likely not even have this conversation.
Taking money from one "class" and giving it to another, sound familiar?

But the politicians need a way to buy votes with our money so it is unlikely this will change.

[Luis Gonzalez]

IMHO, the defense of marriage act was a direct result of years of social engineering at the federal and state level.
For example, God created the IRS, and thus created exemptions to reward people for acceptable behavior (marriage, kids, houses, RV's, Boats, etc) .
The states followed suite and enhanced the engineering (death benefits, hospital visitation, reward for kids, etc).

Those that were not married were not only denied "benefits" awarded to married and in fact, are actually penalized and put less of a strain on the infrastructure (schools, etc).  Of course this is all changing now with more single parents.

So I believe if it were not for all of the "rewards" for good behavior, we would likely not even have this conversation.
Taking money from one "class" and giving it to another, sound familiar?

But the politicians need a way to buy votes with our money so it is unlikely this will change.

Did you support the Federal DoMA?

A simple yes or no will do.

[EdinVA]

Did you support the Federal DoMA?

A simple yes or no will do.

Unfortunately, I do not live in a binary world.

I am opposed to ALL forms of federal social engineering.
Why does the leadership of the world need to know who you are married to?  Don't they have more important things to work on?

[EdinVA]

Did you support the Federal DoMA?

A simple yes or no will do.

I will leave you with this to mull over.

One of the reasons we have states and counties is to allow variations in "culture".  Since the state issues the marriage license, it should be up to the state who is able to marry.  If NY wants to have gay marriage that is ok but another state should not be forced to accept it.  But with the heavy involvement of the feds in private/state issues via social engineering/taxes/benefits/regulations/etc, this won't work.

The same conversation holds true for a number off topics to include abortion.

[libertybele]

Luis wrote above:
[[ I REALLY object to your constant use of the therm RINO. ]]

Well, that's too bad, Luis.

"RINO" is what it is. A term that accurately describes a political critter, one that is doing great damage to the body politic.

You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.

Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!

  

[Carling]

You complaint reminds me of those of the left (particularly blacks), who are "offended" by anything that they don't like or don't want to hear. And who cry "racis'" as a result.

Is calling someone a "RINO" meant to "demean and disparage"?
I certainly hope so!

That about says it all.  No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore.  Is there an ignore feature here?

[Luis Gonzalez]

That about says it all.  No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore.  Is there an ignore feature here?

Yes.

I use it often.

[GourmetDan]

I use it often.

Me too...

[Formerly Once-Ler]

That about says it all.  No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore.  Is there an ignore feature here?

Go up a few posts and click on your name.  It will take you to your profile page.  Click on modify profile.  Scroll down to modify ignore list.  Under "add to ignore list", type in, or cut and paste Fishrrman.

[DCPatriot]

IMO, using the ignore feature in a forum of this size is unnecessary.

Furthermore, if somebody else quotes the ignored poster, you'll still see his/her posts.

I find it much easier to simply use the scroll wheel on my mouse.   

[musiclady]

IMO, using the ignore feature in a forum of this size is unnecessary.

Furthermore, if somebody else quotes the ignored poster, you'll still see his/her posts.

I find it much easier to simply use the scroll wheel on my mouse.   

Totally agree, DC.

There is no one on this forum who has nothing to offer to the discussion.

In some ways putting someone on 'ignore' is a sign of intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

There are forums where it's necessary (one I was on had some really obnoxious leftists who had to be ignored), but not this one.

Maybe use the feature temporarily, but all the time??

It's just not necessary here.

JMHO.

[massadvj]

I have been very tempted to use the "ignore" button here a few times over the years, especially during the 2012 primary.  In the end, just as I was about to click the mouse, I realized that putting someone on ignore said a whole lot more about me and my inability to control my ruffled feathers than it did about whoever was ruffling them.  So I've never done it, though I have come close.

[andy58-in-nh]

I have been very tempted to use the "ignore" button here a few times over the years, especially during the 2012 primary.  In the end, just as I was about to click the mouse, I realized that putting someone on ignore said a whole lot more about me and my inability to control my ruffled feathers than it did about whoever was ruffling them.  So I've never done it, though I have come close.

I have never used the "ignore" button on this forum, or on any other. I never will. That is my decision of course, and to each his or her own. But I think it's cowardly to do so.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Wow.

Good thing right wingers aren't judgmental or anything.
 
 

[EC]

I have never used the "ignore" button on this forum, or on any other. I never will. That is my decision of course, and to each his or her own. But I think it's cowardly to do so.

I've used it once or twice for a couple of days when someone has said something that made me particularly angry. Gives me time to cool off.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That about says it all.  No need for me to read this guy's posts anymore.  Is there an ignore feature here?

Obviously the answer to your question is rather intricate and contains several layers.

Yes... there is such a feature here and available for your use, as designed by the site's architects.

Yes... it is your choice to use it. You may be a coward, a lesser man, intolerant, narrow-minded, incapable of exercising self-control and even lazy, but it is your choice to be all those things.

Having noted the fact that I do use the button, I gather I'm all those things.

[musiclady]

I've used it once or twice for a couple of days when someone has said something that made me particularly angry. Gives me time to cool off.

I think that's the best way to use it.

There's not a single person on this forum who doesn't deserve to be heard, nor their thoughts considered.

Occasionally most of us lose perspective, let our emotions get the best of us, get too sarcastic for our own good, or say things we really don't mean, but there is no one here who is worthy of being completely ignored.

I agree that it says more about us than it does about others if we completely shut out a perspective that is other than our own.

Short term for our own benefit, perhaps, but completely ignoring a rational human being (as we all are here)?  Not a good thing.

[olde north church]

Where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted the power to create FEMA, or the a president given the power to declare a "National emergency"?

You could say it's provided in the 10th Amendment, where all other rights not enumerated above are granted to the people.  The "representatives" of the "People" passed laws and created the bureaus and shelled out the cash.
That would be, if you believe such things.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You could say it's provided in the 10th Amendment, where all other rights not enumerated above are granted to the people.  The "representatives" of the "People" passed laws and created the bureaus and shelled out the cash.
That would be, if you believe such things.

If you use such logic, coupled with the expansive, anything goes interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, then we have a government with no limitations and infinite power, since the actions of any elected official can be interpreted as the will of the people.

Using that logic, no law that the Congress passes, no Executive Order and no Judicial findings are unconstitutional since they were all crafted by elected representatives or their appointees.

By the same token, We the People have rights limited strictly to the narrowest definition of those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, and even those rights are suspect since any violation (as per your argument above) is legitimate since it was the Will of the People as expressed via their votes for the government agency or representative responsible for the violation of those rights. 

I don't buy the "the Constitution doesn't prohibit it or list it so it must be OK" argument, since what's not prohibited or listed in the Constitution is a far greater list of things than the specific Enumerated Powers and restrictions.

I believe in limited government, not unlimited government.