BF2S Forums "Dear American Liberals" a letter from a law student.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nice try, but let me make it simple. In the context of the Constitution, "promote" does not mean guarantee. Just like promoting exercising, does not guarantee health. Good example by the way...Thank you for the help.

No, promoting exercise does not mean guaranteeing health - for a start exercise and health are totally different concepts, they may be linked, but so are lots of things. Promoting exercise would often involve organising and financing exercise. Just like promoting welfare involves organising and funding it.

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Show me evidence to the contrary.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. Show me evidence to the contrary.

Please, I didn't just say you were wrong.

I suggested to you that our nations founding documents provide all the evidence required to show we are not meant to be welfare nanny state with big govt. control over our lives.

No, you said there are lots of examples that prove me wrong.

There is simply too much there and other documents to the contrary. Big Govt. is exactly what they are trying to avoid.

Now if you could actually find some of those examples....

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Please, I didn't just say you were wrong.

I suggested to you that our nations founding documents provide all the evidence required to show we are not meant to be welfare nanny state with big govt. control over our lives.

No, you said there are lots of examples that prove me wrong.

There is simply too much there and other documents to the contrary. Big Govt. is exactly what they are trying to avoid.

Now if you could actually find some of those examples....

Sighhhhhh, gimme a break, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, Bill of Rights. Not in any of these does it promote a big govt. nanay state where the your lives and your successes or failures are controlled by govt. No where does it establish welfare as the order of govt.

If these are not enough, and you can not be bothered to read some of the speeches our founding fathers have spoken I am sorry. I am not going to jump through hoops to try and prove the obvious to you for no other reason than for your enjoyment of being a smart ass.

Where do they say anything against providing for the welfare of citizens.

Come on, I've given you a quote that demonstrates my point. You could at least do the same...

I find it amazing, that in the U.S., the neo-con view of the world looks so much like an old boys club.
"I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."
"The government should NEVER interfere with business."

But the best one must be their stand on the Constitution. Here's why. I have yet to meet an American Conservative that doesn't hate the ACLU.
Why would they be hated so??????
The ACLU's stated mission?
"To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Sounds like a group the Republicans would be behind. I.M.O. the reason they don't.......
"That all men are created equal"

It just doesn't work in the neo-con world. Some must be on top, the rest on the bottom.......AND STAY THAT WAY.
Or as one person said:
" The top ten present just get richer and the rest can move to Mexico, where they can have a better life."

Remember this one lowing, as you munch on your "Freedom Fry's" :

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses"
In case you've forgotten, it's from a plaque on that French statue in New York harbour.
It doesn't read :
Give me your rich, your powerful, your self-absorbed

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Please, I didn't just say you were wrong.

I suggested to you that our nations founding documents provide all the evidence required to show we are not meant to be welfare nanny state with big govt. control over our lives.

No, you said there are lots of examples that prove me wrong.


Now if you could actually find some of those examples....

Sighhhhhh, gimme a break, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, Bill of Rights. Not in any of these does it promote a big govt. nanay state where the your lives and your successes or failures are controlled by govt. No where does it establish welfare as the order of govt.

If these are not enough, and you can not be bothered to read some of the speeches our founding fathers have spoken I am sorry. I am not going to jump through hoops to try and prove the obvious to you for no other reason than for your enjoyment of being a smart ass.

Where do they say anything against providing for the welfare of citizens.

Come on, I've given you a quote that demonstrates my point. You could at least do the same...

No you are trying totwist your quote into saying something it does not.

I even used your own example of exercise promotes health it does not guarantee it, the constitution promotes welfare it does not guarantee it.

If the Constituion provided, ensure or established welfare, it would have said so, obviously, since it used those very terms to say exactly what it did provide and did use it for what it does not provide.

Karbin wrote:

I find it amazing, that in the U.S., the neo-con view of the world looks so much like an old boys club.
"I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."
"The government should NEVER interfere with business."

But the best one must be their stand on the Constitution. Here's why. I have yet to meet an American Conservative that doesn't hate the ACLU.
Why would they be hated so??????
The ACLU's stated mission?
"To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Sounds like a group the Republicans would be behind. I.M.O. the reason they don't.......
"That all men are created equal"

It just doesn't work in the neo-con world. Some must be on top, the rest on the bottom.......AND STAY THAT WAY.
Or as one person said:
" The top ten present just get richer and the rest can move to Mexico, where they can have a better life."

Remember this one lowing, as you munch on your "Freedom Fry's" :

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses"
In case you've forgotten, it's from a plaque on that French statue in New York harbour.
It doesn't read :
Give me your rich, your powerful, your self-absorbed

Since you ar eaddressing me, show me where you quoted me saying "I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."

The ACLU is hated because it bastardizes the intention of law and takes it to the extreme. IE the issue of having the 10 commandments on govt. property, and "in God we trust" on our money as a violation of church and state.

It does say "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" but you need to finish it with, "yearning to breathe free". THe freedom to choose, the freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to build whatever your American dream is. It does not insinuate come to America we will pay for everything.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Where do they say anything against providing for the welfare of citizens.

Come on, I've given you a quote that demonstrates my point. You could at least do the same...

No you are trying totwist your quote into saying something it does not.

I even used your own example of exercise promotes health it does not guarantee it, the constitution promotes welfare it does not guarantee it.

If the Constituion provided, ensure or established welfare, it would have said so, obviously, since it used those very terms to say exactly what it did provide and did use it for what it does not provide.

You've used an example where promote is used to mean contribute - also fits perfectly with my point.

You're talking rubbish and have no substance to back it up, as per usual.

Sorry, cut it any way you want, promote does not mean guarantee, and that is what we are talking about.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You've used an example where promote is used to mean contribute - also fits perfectly with my point.

You're talking rubbish and have no substance to back it up, as per usual.

Sorry, cut it any way you want, promote does not mean guarantee, and that is what we are talking about.

I never said it did. You just said it didn't - dunno why you went off on a tangent like that. As you so often do, you are arguing against what you have imagined and not what has been written.

I said it can mean contribute to or finance and organise - amongst other things.

You're also using the wrong interpretation of the word welfare (I think, it's hard to tell precisely what you mean) - but I hadn't the heart to correct you on that as well....

Look, you were trying to use the Constitution as evidence that our country was set up for govt. coddling of its citizens, and I argued it does not, nor does any other document from that era. YOu used "promote welfare" as meaning that the govt. provides for its people, something that it does not list as providing.

I am not going to around in circles with you on this any longer. You have the final word, I am moving on.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I never said it did. You just said it didn't - dunno why you went off on a tangent like that. As you so often do, you are arguing against what you have imagined and not what has been written.

I said it can mean contribute to or finance and organise - amongst other things.

You're also using the wrong interpretation of the word welfare (I think, it's hard to tell precisely what you mean) - but I hadn't the heart to correct you on that as well....

Look, you were trying to use the Constitution as evidence that our country was set up for govt. coddling of its citizens, and I argued it does not, nor does any other document from that era. YOu used "promote welfare" as meaning that the govt. provides for its people, something that it does not list as providing.

I am not going to around in circles with you on this any longer. You have the final word, I am moving on.

I said they promote the welfare of their citizens. I said socialist countries provide for their citizens.

I also said there is nothing discouraging providing for your citizens in the Constitution.

Do you dispute that?

You keep saying I said things that I didn't say. You do that very frequently. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies with that.

I take it as back peddling, you are saying that since the constitution does not say we can't provide welfare that we then should provide it. Bullshit.


By providing, that means you are taking away from someone else, since provisions are not free, and THAT punishment is protected against in the Constitution.

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

I find it amazing, that in the U.S., the neo-con view of the world looks so much like an old boys club.
"I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."
"The government should NEVER interfere with business."

But the best one must be their stand on the Constitution. Here's why. I have yet to meet an American Conservative that doesn't hate the ACLU.
Why would they be hated so??????
The ACLU's stated mission?
"To defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Sounds like a group the Republicans would be behind. I.M.O. the reason they don't.......
"That all men are created equal"

It just doesn't work in the neo-con world. Some must be on top, the rest on the bottom.......AND STAY THAT WAY.
Or as one person said:
" The top ten present just get richer and the rest can move to Mexico, where they can have a better life."

Remember this one lowing, as you munch on your "Freedom Fry's" :

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses"
In case you've forgotten, it's from a plaque on that French statue in New York harbour.
It doesn't read :
Give me your rich, your powerful, your self-absorbed

Since you ar eaddressing me, show me where you quoted me saying "I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."

The ACLU is hated because it bastardizes the intention of law and takes it to the extreme. IE the issue of having the 10 commandments on govt. property, and "in God we trust" on our money as a violation of church and state.

It does say "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" but you need to finish it with, "yearning to breathe free". THe freedom to choose, the freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to build whatever your American dream is. It does not insinuate come to America we will pay for everything.

Your right on the quote "yearning to breathe free". Where as you see it as you have stated... I see it as you thinking, free being held back by class or station.
You seam to hold that free to be held back. Free to maintain class, free to hold place and power over others.

I don't see that as what the idea was.

As for the ACLU.....
The neo-cons do the same with their version of "extreme".
Use the example you stated. The LAW is the separation of church and state. Else the is no freedom of religion. With your statement you would place one Faith over others. You can't have it both ways.

You have just pointed out the problem. One rule for some, different rules for others.
When ANY group organizes to oppose their position, they are attacked as being "extreme", be that the ACLU or even unions.
Conservatives are only interested in maintaining the stats quo of them on top, the rest subservient to them.
That bastardizes the intention of law.

Last edited by Karbin (2009-03-07 09:53:47)

lol @ OP!!! So the homeless are the liberals' fault yes? LOL

Healthcare a privilege, not a right omg nice one. This is what your doctor is gonna say when you discover that the operation needed to remove your fucking cancer is not included in your privileged healthcare plan.

Also how come Scientology or any form of religion for that matter is adjacent to left-wing ideology I will never understand. Fuck you, keep all of them. And stuff your judeo-christian values of invading whoever smears your "way of life" up your fat asses.

And frankly fuck the assholes who sit and compose this bullshit. Clearly they lack the knowledge to discuss and the patience to learn. Fucking monkeys.

nickb64 wrote:

Karbin wrote:

As for the ACLU.....
The neo-cons do the same with their version of "extreme".
Use the example you stated. The LAW is the separation of church and state. Else the is no freedom of religion. With your statement you would place one Faith over others. You can't have it both ways.

What do you consider to be the meaning of the Separation of Church and State? The original intent was to keep the State out of the Church's business and prevent the persecution of religious groups by the government. This has been distorted to be taken as an intention for the Church to not be allowed to have a political preference. That IS NOT the way the Founders of the United States intended for it to be.

I think you're wrong on that one

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Make no law establishing a religion OR prohibiting free exercise thereof.... I think that OR means both.

The socialist social conservatives are always treating the constitution as an inconvenient truth trying to pick and choose the passages that are convenient and purposefully misinterpreting the ones they don't like. The push for govt to be guided by a homogenous religious belief is the same as establishment of religion. No ifs ands or buts about it. These groups hate groups like the ACLU because they believe that if they live in a enclave where the population in total constitutes a homogenous majority of religious belief that they should somehow be exempt from the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. By the way the qoute was from Thomas Jefferson and wasn't HE a founder, but I guess that just another inconvenience to be ignored.

PS at least the ACLU takes on cases of establishment and free exercise, they don't pick and choose like their critics, so hats off to them at least they live by the American prinicples enshrined in our constitution.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-03-07 12:32:30)