ParanoiA

Oh come on, is that what The Daily Show is? Stephen Colbert? Lighten up, he's trying to be tongue and cheek with his audience and tweak sensitive media and I really think you're just feeding the troll, so to speak. The key difference is that Pat Robertson is a christian figure and Rush is a political one. He's no Glen Beck, he doesn't talk about god and religion except in terms of rights when the issue is current, and of course taking up for the christian right as a political group. It would be out of character for Rush to actually get that religious, in that way, and that loony. I know you want to believe that, but I just think he's trying to get a rise out of the public.

I can assure you this is shtick. I'm surprised we didn't hear any of his usual repetitive giggles where he pretends it's really hilarious and is an inside joke that only the intelligent listeners will get. I wouldn't make a big deal of it because he's going to laugh at the media if they run with it. Remember, this is the same dude that showcases "the media tweak of the day" on his show...well, daily.

I don't believe that's true at all. Most modern libertarians are classical liberals - the founder's philosophy (as Stossel discovers, minus Judge Napolitano apparently). They created a federal government, after lessons learned. Government does some things well, that only government can do. There's a laundry list of responsibilities we really like government doing at the local level that still doesn't approach a fraction of the kind of insult to individual rights that extends beyond that title. I'm not sure fire services would be excluded if you polled modern libertarians. And anti-federalist is a great cousin to libertarians and I've often wondered why we all aren't anti-federalists that direct our efforts to politically diverse state utopias. Oh and the graphic is funny as hell. I'm printing it and putting it up in my cubicle. Thanks.

Yeah, that's the generalized statement that Madison was referring to. It is not its own enumerated power - or else the enumerated powers are needless detail. We could argue this, but I already did above. If you didn't read it the first time, I'm not sure I want to try again.

Because I'm not very damn intelligent this morning? I don't know how I jumped off the reservation on that one. I'll start all over, if I can edit that post. My apologies to iNow.

Did you miss section 8 of that article and the list of enumerated "services"? That's plenty specific enough. But yeah, we're disagreeing on old ground here. I'm guessing you're more of a Hamiltonian stripe, but then keep in mind, that interpretation is also what keeps us from enjoying some relaxing "herbal" remedies. Since I've read your views on that, and other civil liberties, I'm wondering how you reconcile that conflict.

So can I assume 36% did *not* believe the president has increased taxes for most americans? That certainly covers more than a "few" in my book. That's not a measurement of "well educated". Or are you saying our forefathers were too uneducated to realize we should be under English rule leading to a revolution based on ignorance? Hell, that may be true come to think of it... I'm not sure statistical trivia is a proper measurement of education. How well educated are that 36% on Tea Party views? Surely media reports of racism and violence wouldn't effect such answers now would it? Maybe they were considering the 59% of americans that think we're headed in the wrong direction. And 36% disavowing agreement still leaves 64% out there - and still doesn't mean their views aren't shared by the tea partiers. You've yet to prove them wrong. I know a couple of people here at work that distance themselves from the tea party movement, yet are small government (so they say) conservatives. It would be accurate to say their views are shared. I wonder how much of that is responsible for that 36%, or the remaining 39% that apparently "didn't know". Another stat that really doesn't measure education. Contrast that to how much of the general public believes the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy, and that 9/11 was an inside job, and that we never landed on the moon. There's ample evidence there too. Another statement that says nothing about "well educated". Another statement that says nothing about "well educated". Now that's effin stupid, and not very intelligent. But it says nothing about "well educated" or not. Sorry, your point fails. You only have 2 out of 8 accusations, one repeated for redundancy I guess, that even speak to "well educated" and aren't very impressive at that. Of course, it's also a strawman since my injection was that there are more than just a few educated tea partiers. I don't think those numbers prove anything either way. Now, on intelligence...I could write a whole post on it. Some would say I already did..

How do we know he's not an infiltrator of the infiltrators? He could be a token minority tea partier used by the tea party to make believe he's actually an Obama supporter, so he can therefore pretend that the Tea Party were stand up folks. Jus' sayin This could be the fate of many tea partiers too. While they are still largely republican over libertarian (inferred from the 28% support for Ron Paul per the CBS Poll here), there are enough actual, small government folks in the movement that will be disappointed when Newt Gingrich (I'm calling it now...), or some other big government conservative wins the presidency. They too could find themselves tied up like a pretzel in that aftermath.

That's a bit broad. I think article one makes it clear what services they are to provide. If they aren't listed, then it's not for them to provide. If providing services beyond what is enumerated is desired, then pass an amendment. Packing the court with activist Justices empowered by an emotionally fearful climate of economic doom was no way to go about it. GWB would have done the same thing with the "terror fear" if he had the vacancies to appoint.

But that doesn't magically cancel the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment that fills in where they leave off. Per the text: Madison's view, which is the only reasonable view for a limited government purported by the classical liberal framers (today's libertarian), was that the General Welfare clause was shorthand for the enumerated powers since they promote the general welfare. In Federalist No. 41, Madison says "Nothing is more natural or common that first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." Noting the structure of section 8 and the redundancy of such ideas as "common defence" while also enumerating to raise and support armies, to create a Navy, and even to direct the Militia, it should be obvious that the General Welfare clause is the generalized statement that the enumerated powers recite in detail. And that's exactly how it was ruled by the Supreme Court until 1936, United States v Butler and finished off in Helvering v Davis. It took 150 years and Roosevelt's 6 Justice appointments to see it differently. Just like they slaughtered the Commerce Clause in 1942.

I recently acquired Adobe Flash CS4 Portable by Atalay, and it runs just fine on my own machine, which is running Windows XP. But it will not run on my wife's brand new laptop, which has Windows 7. It returns an error to the effect that the program was stopped. When I poke around with the event viewer I find that it's apparently an APPCrash. I was told to try turning off UAC, which I did. But she doesn't have Win 7 "professional", so the process for turning that off isn't quite the same. It uses a slider instead. I also tried running the program by right clicking and choosing to "run as administrator". I even tried using Windows Compatibility and applying XP settings - it still doesn't run and gives the same error. Nothing works. And when I google for a fix, I only find a couple of relevant pages, which appears to be someone else reporting the same problem, same program, but with a different error and there is no solution offered. Has anyone else experienced this issue, or have any ideas on how to fix it?

Educated few? I don't know about that... According to CBS's poll, only 18% of americans support the Tea Party, so infamous is probably right.

All it takes is one voice in the crowd, a couple nasty signs - out of thousands and you will successfully bait the media. It doesn't have to be huge or remotely organized to pull that off. Good thread jryan.

The constitutional argument against the commerce clause being used against the healthcare bill is that we aren't engaged in commerce by simply being alive and breathing. My medical care doesn't exist until I go engage in it - yet the government has passed a law forcing me to begin engaging in commerce. Contrast that to other applications of the commerce clause, where there exists an object in possession that therefore can be regulated since possessing that object effects interstate commerce of those objects. Services are regulated on the service side, since by providing a service they are engaged in commerce too. So you can regulate massage parlors if you want. Nowhere do we have the right to assume that all citizens are engaged in a service and apply regulation to them. One can argue all day long that we'll eventually use the service, but that's a can of worms without a reasonable end. If by merely being alive and inside the borders of the US means that I'm engaged in commerce, then the constitution is toilet paper.

Caught a few minutes of Rush at lunch time today, as open line Friday's are always kind of interesting and he is doing his annual Leukemia and Lymphoma Society money drive, kicking it off with a $400,000 donation. And apparently donations are surprisingly high this year, as well as last - at least according to the show. So it dawned on me, that this serves a better example of a point I've tried to make over the years. (I always used starving chinese kids as an example.)That when we set up programs to help folks and fund them with taxes, that we are essentially forcing everyone to redirect their capital to causes that we find important. We've decided that your causes will take a back seat to ours. You want to help children dying of blood cancer? You'll have to fund that with whatever you have leftover after funding full grown, healthy adults for food and housing, and now health insurance - just the tip of the list. Not to mention a number of child services, like school lunches and head start. Isn't this a conflict of ostensible priority? Aren't dying children more important than adults without a house? Aren't dying children in more need of my money than children who can't eat lunch? How dare the government force such immoral priorities on me. I wonder how much money has been taken from the people to fund mild need that would have gone to extreme need by that person's choice.

I read nothing in my post you've responded to here that counters that. Try again. This time I'll bold the part you missed. Your opinion is that his statement is not to be applied that way given the context - even though the verbiage, itself, contains the conflict. That's fair. This would be like a police officer saying "I don't worry about the law on this", and we discover later that he had already verified the law supported his position. In your examples, they do not contain self incriminating verbiage, despite the obvious interpretation also present. If you're going to draw a valid analogy, it must contain both a statement and the vocabulary must repudiate their job function. And enough with the misrepresentation charges, you're just as guilty of sloppy work here. He didn't say "I'm not worried about that" - he said "I don't worry about the constitution on this..." which is curious, because you specifically said he didn't say just that in your opening sentence: But he did say that, after all... http://coloyan.com/blog/index.php/representative-phil-hare-d-il-doesnt-care-about-the-constitution/

This is awesome.

They can still violate their oath, but they don't qualify as an analogy to self incrimination by outright repudiation of your very job function. Those are examples of people saying or doing something that we interpret as a violation - while they are free to delusionally believe it is not. While you and others have done a terrific job of proving more subjectivity than I wanted to believe in this case, I still insist on a distinction here. I don't really know how to say it any differently. A fireman that doesn't worry about fires. A teacher that says she doesn't care about teaching. A police officer that states he doesn't worry about the law, when questioned why he's arresting a 5 year old for drinking water. I'm talking about vocally directly countering your job function. The interpretation here is about whether or not they meant the statement as we heard it - the violation is contained in the verbiage itself - in that case we're trying to be sure the statement was meant to be applied that way. In your examples, the violation itself is not contained in the verbiage - it's still a subjective reconciliation with the document.

Do we have a choice? Oh, and could you shrink the universe so we can explore a bit more than our backyard? Thanks.

That's why the proverbial fine print only flies legally. If you screw enough people with the fine print, you may not have broken any laws, but you've broken trust with the consumer. If that gets out, you're losing business, which is the point of your ISP adventure. AOL was rumored to block content, like a decade ago I think and I forget the details or if it was even true. But I do remember friends of mine and co-workers telling me about it and chucking their service because of it. (I don't even hear about AOL anymore, I wonder if they're still in business...) Most EULA's don't screw people, so when most of us say "yeah, sure, just install it..." we're reasonably sure we're not agreeing to some malicious scheme. The fine print and legal mumbo jumbo is pretty chickenshit, I totally agree. But in the interest of freedom, I think it's well worth it.

Absolutely it is true that I paraphrased incorrectly, that was sloppy on my part. And that does change the dynamics of the conversation, no doubt. There is a big difference between "I don't worry" and "I don't care". However, considering that, it has not changed my conclusion since processing this in context still results in similar usage. I do believe in this case, he is saying "I don't worry" the same way you'd say "I don't care" - he appeared to be enthused to share his disregard for the constitution with the camerman because he resents being held to that document when he's trying to "save children". That's why he went straight to it - he is convinced the righteousness of saving precious kiddos justifies not worrying whether or not the constitution supports it. That's obvious. I shouldn't have to prefix every statement with "Gee, this is my opinion" or "I think" or "I believe" to share an opinion. I actually do alot of that already, but it's nonsense to assume that without those qualifiers that every statement becomes a statement of fact. That's what you're doing here...oops, I think. You don't get to decide what it implies. That's up to the reader. Making opinionated statements as if they are facts is a standard you don't accept from others, so I hardly see how you excuse yourself. But, of course it implies that - and that has NOTHING to do with this exchange actually. Remember, back on page 1 that started all this: Maybe because you declared this to be an open and shut case, and people can think of many blatantly unconstitutional acts that have gone unpunished. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. Hare didn't say "I don't care about the constitution;" that was the cameraman. You're actually trying to excuse yourself for missing the condition of the thread because I called it an open and shut case. You were the second person to bring up an example of someone supposedly violating their oath by legislative action - not by outright repudiation of their job by their own mouth. That is the condition I'm arguing in this thread. And this is the reason why. I'm trying to draw a careful line between political prosecution, which is entirely partisan and destructive, and self incrimination of oath violation, which should be absolutely nonpartisan and destructive to let go unpunished. You can disagree all you want, and most have. We're having this exchange because you're externalizing misunderstanding the conditions I brought up in this thread. Re-reading the OP, my last sentence can be misleading. But the sentence before it nails it, and I even emphasized the word "believe" when I said "you are expected to at least believe you are upholding your sworn oath". And just like "worry" and "care" can change the meaning, so does "believe", in that statement. It means the difference between 225 years of political legislative examples that can be interpreted as violations of oath and one congressman in 2010 repudiating his elected charge. That's a huge difference. No, I know it's still an interpretation and you can still disagree with it. But that doesn't make analogies to legislative acts, that can be interpreted as violations, somehow valid. The condition still applies and those examples are invalid. I don't get to throw in apples because I think you're wrong about oranges.

Offense taken, I do not appreciate being called a human. I'm not leaping to conclusions, I'm drawing one by considering the context. As an unashamed advocate for personal liberty and Constitutional reverance, I am absolutely astounded by an elected official, who's very job it is to uphold and defend the constitution, shrugging off constitutional questions. Interpret how you want. I've defended plenty of democrats in my time, including the latest Obama-is-sorry-we're-a-super-power nonsense, and this legislator is guilty of not giving a crap what he is paid to give a crap for - that's my interpretation. I absolutely get to decide if I think my post was clear. And I think you are externalizing your problem with interpreting my OP. The notion that my stating it was an "open and shut case" that caused you to not understand the point of this thread, is reaching...to put it kindly. The "Open and shut" phrase doesn't have magical properties that make people not understand concepts. Remember, that was your excuse for bringing up unconsitutional law making as a comparison to self incrimination and vocal repudiation of one's very charge. Tell me again, what exactly is so misleading about my OP that I "caused" your error?

That's a swipe at Obama in reference to this.