Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 11:10 AM Reply   
Thanks!

Last edited by SamIngram; 06-03-2011 at 11:16 AM.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 12:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
John Adams to Abigail Adams – July 7, 1775

Your Description of the Distresses of the worthy Inhabitants of Boston, and the other Sea Port Towns, is enough to melt an Heart of Stone. Our Consolation must be this, my dear, that Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it…
Politicians were a lot smarter back then huh?

Quote:
Welfare is unconstitutional in every way.
From our Constitution's preamble:
..provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ..."
I would assume welfare (as we know it today) would fall under "promoting the general welfare"

The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need. The ultimate goal is to lift welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient.... not having it would be far worse.

Quote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " Thomas Jefferson
That maybe true what TJ had to say, but lets face it, we live in a sinful and tyrannical country... but its the best option out there. You don't like it, leave. The USA is what it is and honestly welfare sucks to me and you.... because we're not benefiting - GOOD FOR US!
You really want to stand there and **** on those people who are are on the bottom rung of society!?.... If you answered yes, you're a dick.

I agree some abuse the system, some people are *******s, but others have nothing else but the system.... people who work 3 jobs and get welfare to keep their kids in a house and fed DESERVE HELP FROM THOSE WHO CAN - YOU AND ME.

If you feel " compelled to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors..." I'm sure there are plenty of countries willing to take you in that have the same belief system as you do.

Quote:
What did we do before welfare? Were people starving in the streets?
Yup.
The industrial revolution is a perfect example of this... far before welfare and other government programs that "Control business" (another thing I'm sure you hate) things were bad. People literatly were starving in the streets.


Honestly can you imagine being at the point where you/your kids have no shelter, no food, and no change of digging out?! If someone effs up their live and is poor/homeless/etc fine and so be it, they only have themself to blame, but having children suffer because their idoit parents could keep from humping more than working isn't fair.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-03-2011, 12:12 PM Reply   
^Very nice.
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 12:26 PM Reply   
Nick,
Now that you are thinking and actually reading the founding documents I hope you continue the process...

Try reading the Federalist Papers and you will find that you are wrong, welfare does not fall under " Promoting the General Welfare" statement.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

I sincerely hope that you continue your analysis! Way to go, keep it up!

You also posted the following;
That maybe true what TJ had to say, but lets face it, we live in a sinful and tyrannical country... but its the best option out there. You don't like it, leave.

I would encourage you to consider another option, instead of compelling people to "leave". I would encourage you to consider the option of fixing or changing the problems that you see. Get involved and participate, don't be a spectator.

To Jeff Wadholm (jeff_mn);
HUH? I don't care what you say or do, this is the internet man, it's a free for all.

My only goal/hope is that people realize how great this country is and how we, the people, have to protect it. I know everyone has different viewpoints, that is what makes this country great. I just wish that people would take the time and effort in order to understand what we have, and what we have to lose. My only intent with my sometimes radical, "know it all" style of writing is that it makes people think, and makes them consider a different viewpoint. Just maybe, it will influence someone enough that they either learn something new or school me! I love it when both happens! I love to learn and try to learn something new every day.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 12:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
hope is that people realize how great this country is and how we, the people, have to protect it.
Quote:
would encourage you to consider the option of fixing or changing the problems that you see
Protect and fix are different.

Find me a quote from someone after 1950 and I'll consider it relevant.... IT ISN'T THE 1700s !!! What they said/did back then does not apply now. They were what 15/16 states at the time of the latest quote you have up there. It was a different country at a different time. While I agree their ideas and quotes are great and amazing, they're about as useful as a horse and buggy in today's world. You could pack up those quotes and take them with you to start you own country, like they did.

Here is a dandy from your friend John Adams:
"I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate. "

From what I gather, he is saying that since he is now a politician and makes the rules - get ready because he'll bend you and do whatever he pleases.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-03-2011, 12:56 PM Reply   
"I agree some abuse the system, some people are *******s"

Isn't that what this legislation(the original point of the thread in case anyone forgot) is supposed to help curb?
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 1:12 PM Reply   
Yes. I am on the side of this country needs welfare, but needs to purge the system of the turds (as does unemployement)

Sam feels welfare is unconstitutional and should be gone.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-03-2011, 1:38 PM Reply   
Sorry. Haven't been keeping up with the thread.


Sam, Its simple. If you feel strongly that welfare is unconstitutional, do something about it and take and file with the SCOTUS.
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 2:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
Yes. I am on the side of this country needs welfare, but needs to purge the system of the turds (as does unemployement)

Sam feels welfare is unconstitutional and should be gone.
Au contraire, mon frere! I think that Federal welfare is unconstitutional, the states can do what ever their individual constitutions allow them to do.

I am trying to to do something about it. I'm a PC! I also take as many classes as I can regarding the constitution, history, and economic theory. I try to have as many discussions on the topic as I can. Hopefully one day I can make a difference. Everyone should considering becoming a Precinct Committeman!



It is my position that we should protect the remaining freedoms that we have and that we should be fixing or restoring the freedoms that have been taking away from us.

It is also my assertion that the Constitution is a timeless document and that it has the same meaning today as it had when it was written. It is not a living document. I believe that FDR was an evil man and is burning in hell.

I also think you have misunderstood the Adams quote that you posted.

This quote, to me, is truly amazing. John Adams makes it evident that his election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives is a great burden that must be accepted by, not only him, but his entire family. This, to me, shows how much character Adams possessed. He knew that it was his duty to serve his country and he also knew that, in order to do it well, his family life would have to suffer. You asked for some modern day quotes regarding the validity of the Constitution and I think this discussion by Senator Paul touches on both...

Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-03-2011, 2:12 PM Reply   
"I believe that FDR was an evil man and is burning in hell."

From someone that talks about individual thinking, this is spoken like a true Rushie. But that is your modus operandi, still other people's quotes and pawn them off as your own.

Since you like historical passages so much.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 2:12 PM Reply   
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 2:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"I believe that FDR was an evil man and is burning in hell."

From someone that talks about individual thinking, this is spoken like a true Rushie. But that is your modus operandi, still other people's quotes and pawn them off as your own.

Since you like historical passages so much.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Nice, Mathew 7, 1-5, I know it very well, and yes, I will be judged and will accept that judgement.

Personally, I see the usage of other people's thoughts and quotes, perfectly okay. Others have that are far smarter than myself have had all these conversations before. Are you saying that I need to cite each quotation that I use? I am sorry, I missed that in the internet forum rules, do they call for APA, MLA, Turabian, or the Chicago citation style? I love how you attack me for one statement in my post versus the actual overall meaning behind it.

I am sorry Nick, I thought we were having a discussion...
Old    SamIngram            06-03-2011, 2:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"I believe that FDR was an evil man and is burning in hell."

From someone that talks about individual thinking, this is spoken like a true Rushie. But that is your modus operandi, still other people's quotes and pawn them off as your own.

Since you like historical passages so much.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
BTW Jeremy, you once again are using a Bible quote out of context... I would encourage you to do some research regarding Matthew 7 and its context..
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-03-2011, 3:07 PM Reply   
Besides all the 'welfare is unconstitutional' b.s., what do folks think about the original post and drug testing for welfare recipients? Welfare is lawful and is here to stay, so I'm more curious about folks' opinions on the relevant topic of the lawfulness and worthiness of the topic at hand in regards to drug testing these folks.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-03-2011, 4:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Sorry. Haven't been keeping up with the thread.
I read this and realized we were getting out of hand.

Quote:
o I'm more curious about folks' opinions on the relevant topic of the lawfulness and worthiness of the topic at hand in regards to drug testing these folks.
Like someone posted before, I think it should be treaded like a job (albeit they're not working for that check) and if I can be screened for drugs to keep my job I work hard at, they should be subjected to the same standards.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-03-2011, 6:16 PM Reply   
Sam, someone could post a line from Dr. Seuss and you would argue that the green eggs and ham were really blue and that they have taken it out of context. I'm done arguing with you. Keep up your chicken little, sky is falling style of thinking. Honestly, your posts are comical and have the truth value of Mad magazine.

Brett, I don't think it will stand. I think it will be overruled by a higher court and a lot of Florida's taxpayers money will be wasted on arguing the bill. It sounds great, but even if did pass, I think the savings for taxpayers would be minimum, if any. There are plenty of other things lawmakers could be fighting for that would have a significant impact on the economy. It's political grandstanding, plain and simple.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-03-2011, 7:15 PM Reply   
Jeremy, I think that you just like to argue. That's ok.

The point in support of the drug testing, for me, is that it would be the beginning of a change in the culture. What was it......change we can believe in.....?

You might be correct in saying that the cost savings would be minimal. I do believe that this type of check and balance is the type of culture change that our government needs to grow through. There needs to be systems in place that prevent (or make it extremely difficult) to abuse government programs. When/if the governments culture changes, true cost savings will emerge. The public also needs to go through a tough culture change. If these programs are harder to qualify for, or the penalties for abuse/fraud are extremely stiff, the result should be that only the ACTUAL needy receive the benefits.
One of the biggest problems with our government is that we can't get through these baby steps because of outcries from opposing groups. We seem to stifle any real change by getting caught up in the inability to take that first step.

This, I would argue, is just a first step. Pass the thing.....it just makes good sense
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-03-2011, 8:33 PM Reply   
Funny you bring up the change in culture idea. I totally see that people argue that if you need to get a drug test to get a job, then you should get it to get welfare. And if you like the idea of drug testing in the workplace then that's a fine argument. But if you don't like the culture of intruding into people's personal lives then you might be against it because it's an expansion of loss of privacy.

I know a few people here run their own businesses and might have personal experience, a friend of mine who owns a business was required by his business insurance to have a drug testing policy. So it sounds a bit more like other people running our lives. Just like auto insurance uses credit records to decide how much of a driving risk your are. Why not require us to take a psychological test to determine our rates? The culture is basically we are pawns of the corporate world who want to know more about us so they can find ways to extract more money.

My wife went to get her drivers license renewed today. We forgot our marriage license to prove her name change from her birth certificate even though she had the SS card with her married name and the previous license with her married name. Head back home and get the marriage license. They claimed it wasn't official and was a copy. This is even though when we married we paid for two official copies, and these were the one's sent to us. And I have a feeling even if I get another it will be the same. Two years ago none of this was required when I renewed mine.

This is what your govt debt pays for. More expansion into your personal life. So it isn't specifically an issue wrt welfare. It's the culture of fear that allows us to let the govt and the corp world conspire to make a crappier life for all of us. There is nothing I would like better than enough Congressmen to stand up and say no rise in the debt ceiling unless we bring home our soldiers and make at least enough immediate severe cuts in govt to cut the spending deficit in half.

BTW, the govenor that's implementing this policy was the CEO of a corp fined 1.7 billion for medicare fraud under his watch. He basically bought the election with his own money.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-04-2011, 5:31 PM Reply   
Here's more evidence that the Constitution is little more than a museum piece....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._scotus17.html
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-05-2011, 3:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw View Post
Besides all the 'welfare is unconstitutional' b.s., what do folks think about the original post and drug testing for welfare recipients? Welfare is lawful and is here to stay, so I'm more curious about folks' opinions on the relevant topic of the lawfulness and worthiness of the topic at hand in regards to drug testing these folks.
Illegality of welfare aside, I don't care for prohibition of any drugs. It creates terrible criminal organizations and does nothing to curb addiction. Addiction has always been a problem though before prohibition most with addiction problems were ashamed of it and kept it out of public view and did their best to not let it interfere with their livelihood. Since use of certain drugs was criminalized jails have been crowded with nonviolent criminals who have committed victimless crimes. We have seen the rise of many large criminal organizations which transitioned easily from alcohol production and smuggling to harder drugs upon prohibition of those.

So with that in mind, although I disapprove of hard drug use and marijuana use, I cannot agree with this proposed law to drug test welfare recipients.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-05-2011, 3:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Because it's only theft philosophically. If other people's philosophy say's it's not theft then it isn't to them. Legally it's not theft. And that's the final word until the law is changed.
It is theft in the fact of the actions. Taking against one's will, at gunpoint, one's earnings and giving it to another without the consent of the person who earned that money. This is no different than robber on any city street. Saying welfare is acceptable is the same concept as saying armed robbery by a street thug is acceptable.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-05-2011, 5:41 PM Reply   
"It is theft in the fact of the actions. Taking against one's will, at gunpoint, one's earnings and giving it to another without the consent of the person who earned that money. This is no different than robber on any city street. Saying welfare is acceptable is the same concept as saying armed robbery by a street thug is acceptable."

You could twist that argument a bit to fit any government spending that you don't agree with. Obviously that's not going to work. We pay taxes, and our government spends the money. Some things the government spends it on you'll agree with and some you won't. 300 million people in this country want money spent only on what care about. Obviously it'll never work that way. Welfare is perfectly legal, constitutional and here to stay. Some limits on abuse are a great - such as drug testing to prevent people from getting welfare to spend on drugs.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us