Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?
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 |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?
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. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution? | Metalworking | |||
What are the best gifts for Home Improvement type people | Woodworking | |||
What are the best gifts for Home Improvement type people | Home Repair | |||
CNCing a new case for the Constitution | Metalworking | |||
'E.U. CONSTITUTION VOTE LOST IN FRANCE - AND IN U.K, TOO?' | UK diy |