On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 8:13 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/14/2012 12:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:20:03 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



"Jeff wrote in message
...

. net wrote in message
...


"Gunner wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:47:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:41 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:31 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

There are zero or one correct religions. That fact is
indisputable.


I disagree totally .

Then mount a substantive counter-argument.

If one God exists, that makes it even more likely that there are
multiple Gods.

I didn't say gods, I said religions.

One God could inspire many religions.

Indeed. In fact...the Norse gods for example have comminality with the
Greek ones and so forth.

Its not at all impossible for a single God to show himself to different
cultures in different ways, ways that have some commonality with the
culture in question.

Or a bunch of god(s) divided up the human race via dice, foot races or
some such and are huckstering

Heck, it could be a completion to see who can get the most worshipers.

Which come to think of it would do a lot to explain some tenets in
Christianity.

Such as the 1st Commandment.



"Thou shall have no other Gods before me," means to not pray to the rain
god, wind god, sun god, and so on. There are no other gods, that's all
that means.

If there are no other gods, then how can one have another before Him?

Sorry, but that commandment clearly establishes and acknowledges the
existence of gods other than God.
For if there were no other gods, then this commandment would be moot and
irrational.

Are you suggesting God is irrational?


Excellent !! Bravo!!


Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?

Instead when people discuss the constitution they ignore what is written
and tell us all kinds of things that should be filling up the white
space on the page.


I ask questions like How can the "United States" include the States and
the People when in Amendment 10 it clearly defines the States and The
people as having the powers NOT delegated to the United States. That
absolutely separates the three.


So when reading ARTICLE I Section 8 and it says "United States" why is
it suddenly "interpreted" as including the People and the States and so
Federal Welfare can go to the States and the People?

You work at being stupid, don't you? It's one of the few successes in
your life.

"Welfare" in Article I Section 8 does not mean "the dole", "food
stamps", "AFDC/TANF", or any other kind of transfer payment.

Hamilton would have said it could, if Congress so decides. And his
view is now ensconsed in all of the case law, at all levels.

See my other post to Scotty about "general welfare" interpretations.


"United States" in the Constitution refers to the country, or - and the
context makes it clear - to the federal government of the country. I
know you're just itching to show your ass again by saying that
constitutional mention of citizenship refers to being "citizens of the
federal government", and of course you will be wrong when you do.

I don't think even Scotty is that clueless...but I could be wrong
about that.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/14/2012 9:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 8:13 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/14/2012 12:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:20:03 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



"Jeff wrote in message
...

. net wrote in message
...


"Gunner wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:47:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:41 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:31 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

There are zero or one correct religions. That fact is
indisputable.


I disagree totally .

Then mount a substantive counter-argument.

If one God exists, that makes it even more likely that there are
multiple Gods.

I didn't say gods, I said religions.

One God could inspire many religions.

Indeed. In fact...the Norse gods for example have comminality with the
Greek ones and so forth.

Its not at all impossible for a single God to show himself to different
cultures in different ways, ways that have some commonality with the
culture in question.

Or a bunch of god(s) divided up the human race via dice, foot races or
some such and are huckstering

Heck, it could be a completion to see who can get the most worshipers.

Which come to think of it would do a lot to explain some tenets in
Christianity.

Such as the 1st Commandment.



"Thou shall have no other Gods before me," means to not pray to the rain
god, wind god, sun god, and so on. There are no other gods, that's all
that means.

If there are no other gods, then how can one have another before Him?

Sorry, but that commandment clearly establishes and acknowledges the
existence of gods other than God.
For if there were no other gods, then this commandment would be moot and
irrational.

Are you suggesting God is irrational?


Excellent !! Bravo!!


Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?

Instead when people discuss the constitution they ignore what is written
and tell us all kinds of things that should be filling up the white
space on the page.


I ask questions like How can the "United States" include the States and
the People when in Amendment 10 it clearly defines the States and The
people as having the powers NOT delegated to the United States. That
absolutely separates the three.


So when reading ARTICLE I Section 8 and it says "United States" why is
it suddenly "interpreted" as including the People and the States and so
Federal Welfare can go to the States and the People?

You work at being stupid, don't you? It's one of the few successes in
your life.

"Welfare" in Article I Section 8 does not mean "the dole", "food
stamps", "AFDC/TANF", or any other kind of transfer payment.

Hamilton would have said it could, if Congress so decides. And his
view is now ensconsed in all of the case law, at all levels.

See my other post to Scotty about "general welfare" interpretations.

The general welfare clause, in which "welfare" is taken to mean the
well-being of the country, may - *may* - authorize the Congress to
implement programs to assist individual people in the form of transfer
payments, rent subsidies, in-kind goods transfer, etc., as part of what
people colloquially call "welfare". These welfare payments are for the
*personal* well-being of the recipients. The word "welfare" is used to
mean different things. The former meaning may authorize the measures
intended to affect the latter meaning, but they are not synonyms.



"United States" in the Constitution refers to the country, or - and the
context makes it clear - to the federal government of the country. I
know you're just itching to show your ass again by saying that
constitutional mention of citizenship refers to being "citizens of the
federal government", and of course you will be wrong when you do.

I don't think even Scotty is that clueless...but I could be wrong
about that.

Oh, yes he is! He has *specifically* said that, along with even more
crackpot bull****, in a thread entitled "Busted! Two New Fed GPS
Trackers Found on SUV" back in December. It all hinged on his crackpot
(unhinged) interpretation of "United States." He insisted there is no
such thing as "national" citizenship, and that interpreting the name as
meaning the country would mean you were a citizen of *each* state, not
just the state in which you reside. It was a completely incoherent
jumble of wrong ideas.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:50:50 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 9:10 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -0700, George
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 8:13 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/14/2012 12:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:20:03 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



"Jeff wrote in message
...

. net wrote in message
...


"Gunner wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:47:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:41 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:31 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

There are zero or one correct religions. That fact is
indisputable.


I disagree totally .

Then mount a substantive counter-argument.

If one God exists, that makes it even more likely that there are
multiple Gods.

I didn't say gods, I said religions.

One God could inspire many religions.

Indeed. In fact...the Norse gods for example have comminality with the
Greek ones and so forth.

Its not at all impossible for a single God to show himself to different
cultures in different ways, ways that have some commonality with the
culture in question.

Or a bunch of god(s) divided up the human race via dice, foot races or
some such and are huckstering

Heck, it could be a completion to see who can get the most worshipers.

Which come to think of it would do a lot to explain some tenets in
Christianity.

Such as the 1st Commandment.



"Thou shall have no other Gods before me," means to not pray to the rain
god, wind god, sun god, and so on. There are no other gods, that's all
that means.

If there are no other gods, then how can one have another before Him?

Sorry, but that commandment clearly establishes and acknowledges the
existence of gods other than God.
For if there were no other gods, then this commandment would be moot and
irrational.

Are you suggesting God is irrational?


Excellent !! Bravo!!


Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?

Instead when people discuss the constitution they ignore what is written
and tell us all kinds of things that should be filling up the white
space on the page.


I ask questions like How can the "United States" include the States and
the People when in Amendment 10 it clearly defines the States and The
people as having the powers NOT delegated to the United States. That
absolutely separates the three.


So when reading ARTICLE I Section 8 and it says "United States" why is
it suddenly "interpreted" as including the People and the States and so
Federal Welfare can go to the States and the People?

You work at being stupid, don't you? It's one of the few successes in
your life.

"Welfare" in Article I Section 8 does not mean "the dole", "food
stamps", "AFDC/TANF", or any other kind of transfer payment.

Hamilton would have said it could, if Congress so decides. And his
view is now ensconsed in all of the case law, at all levels.

See my other post to Scotty about "general welfare" interpretations.

The general welfare clause, in which "welfare" is taken to mean the
well-being of the country, may - *may* - authorize the Congress to
implement programs to assist individual people in the form of transfer
payments, rent subsidies, in-kind goods transfer, etc., as part of what
people colloquially call "welfare". These welfare payments are for the
*personal* well-being of the recipients. The word "welfare" is used to
mean different things. The former meaning may authorize the measures
intended to affect the latter meaning, but they are not synonyms.

Well, right. The colloquial meaning of "welfare" is actually a special
case of what the Constitution meant.

And what it meant, or what it means under the law, wasn't the opinion
of all of the Founders -- Madison would have objected strongly, for
example. But, again, Hamilton's view prevailed in the courts and in
the Congress.




"United States" in the Constitution refers to the country, or - and the
context makes it clear - to the federal government of the country. I
know you're just itching to show your ass again by saying that
constitutional mention of citizenship refers to being "citizens of the
federal government", and of course you will be wrong when you do.

I don't think even Scotty is that clueless...but I could be wrong
about that.

Oh, yes he is! He has *specifically* said that, along with even more
crackpot bull****, in a thread entitled "Busted! Two New Fed GPS
Trackers Found on SUV" back in December.

I saw that and mostly ignored it. It was too crazy.

It all hinged on his crackpot
(unhinged) interpretation of "United States." He insisted there is no
such thing as "national" citizenship, and that interpreting the name as
meaning the country would mean you were a citizen of *each* state, not
just the state in which you reside. It was a completely incoherent
jumble of wrong ideas.

It does sound incoherent.

You usually can terminate states' rights rants by pointing out that if
we still had pre-1868 states' rights, none of us would be guarenteed
free speech or the right to own guns. The second point usually shuts
them up like scared clams. 8-)

For that matter, Connecticut didn't disestablish the Congregational
Church until 1818; Massachusetts funded the same church until 1833.
Several other states established the Church of England for a time
after the Constitution was signed. Only Protestants could hold public
office in North Carolina until 1835. States' rights, ya' know...

--
Ed Huntress