Impressively dumb, counselor! The government’s spending power is limited by whether it chooses to appropriate money! Buahahahahaha!
Well, YES!!! My spending power is also limited by whether I choose to spend the money. NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!
Anyone in there, McFly??
Well, that’ll save you the hassle of having to talk to yourself. 
Try bringing one. Or not.
Like I said, you are only trying to derail and distract.
You really think that ““Who cares about the money? We have A Cause! If you oppose my Cause, you are Evil!”” is an honest or decent argument, that’s what you opened with.
About your judges, well, yes, I do see something about judges in that paragraph, and that is the word “constitution” which defines the need for judges. That you disagree with the constitution on that point doesn’t really matter, it’s in there, and no matter how much whining you do, the judges will stay. Now that we have agreed that that judges are called for in the constitution, you can stop trying to use them as a distraction.
Anyway, unless you actually bring some sort of actual “decent” argument, I have no interest in engaging with someone who would rather send his tax dollars to the wealthy than to see a child recieve medical treatment. I may continue to call you out on your hypocrisy, but that may get old, as you demonstrate that in nearly every post.
Yep, really dumb. And Bricker failed to see why I mentioned the slavery bit. There are items that are being superceded thanks to the march of time and progress. So it is important to notice when choices that many republicans are making are indistinguishable from inhuman ones.
It’s important also to notice that CHIP does have bipartisan support, point being that some Republicans are human indeed and disregard sorry opinions from the dark angels from their nature.
And I’d prefer you to stop falling back on stupid talking points. But you don’t always get what you want.
There is no constitutional issue here. This is about providing healthcare, which the government has done for a long time. The general welfare clause is probably the textual support, but I don’t know the case law, nor how to access it. But I’m sure you do.
The government also has an explicit right to raise money, period. It can increase taxes if it so desires. All it takes is a law doing so. That doesn’t mean it can do whatever it wants, but taxes are an explicit power.
And you guys are the ones who push for the strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. You’re the one that sees “shall not be infringed” as being absolutely restrictive on the government. The other side is that this is limited to the formation of a militia, but the law doesn’t quite say that. They have to argue intent, asking why that clause is even in the law in the first place.
You are just trying to distract from the actual subject. Clothahump was just reaching for an excuse, and you jumped on it like it was a life preserver in a storm. Nevermind that it has no bearing on anything being discussed, and was provably false. It let you pull out standard right-wing talking point #354.
Oh, and liberals are actually far more concerned about what is right or what is fair or what is the least harmful. What I want is far, far from what I consider when it has to do with politics.
Stop trying to change “what we think is right” to “what you want.” They are different things. What we want is sinful, the desires of the flesh. What I want is enough money, but what is right is for children to get healthcare.
Not to be nitpicky, but I believe that it is actually talking point #354(a)ii.5
He’s probably using the abridged talking points collection rather than the omnibus version
Then I assume you’re going to respond any minute now to my concise post reminding you that CHIP was clearly constitutional until it expired, and that its expiration does not rewrite history and make it unconstitutional in the past. You will clearly respond to it because it utterly and completely destroys the position fronted by the post of yours it was replying to (which itself wasn’t decent argument at all). Debate doesn’t get stepped up harder than completely destroying your absurd positions.
Never once did I say that CHIP was unconstitutional. So I’m not sure which argument you imagine you defeated, but it wasn’t mine.
Well, you certainly *implied *it in post 49.
Ya know what? Whatever. That isn’t a goalpost worth hunting down.
So CHIP was constitutional, and the constitution is totally allowed to enable congress to write laws that create welfare programs. Everything was totally on the up and up.
Until our current batch of bozos got so busy massaging their giant gift to the rich that they forgot to re-up this tiny gift to the poor.
It is the non-republican position that there’s no good reason for the republicans to have allowed CHIP to die - the standard talking point about welfare being too expensive falls utterly flat when you consider the huge gift they’re trying to give the rich. They absolutely can afford CHIP - or they can’t possibly afford their tax cut.
The republican position is, apparently, that the poor children can be fucked up the ass with rusty razors for all they care. Or isn’t it?
No, just like the Las vegas thread, where he said “What if someone blows up a building with fertilizer and diesel”, and the realized that he had just made a completely indefensible argument, in this thread, he has realized that he actually does have no leg to stand on, that his arguments don’t actually hold up to any scrutiny.
Rather than admit that, he runs. I don’t blame him. It is one thing to defend evil on the fact that the evil is legally mandated, it is quite another when it becomes obvious that it is just you. By claiming that he will only respond to reasonable arguments, what he means is that he will only respond to arguments where he can find some little nitpick flaw in which to derail the conversation once again.
So, with Bricker’s threadshitting distractions out of the way…
Yeah, there will be quite a number of people who are going to wake up in a few weeks and find that their children can’t go to the doctor anymore. Many of them are going to be people that voted for republicans. It will be interesting to see if they put the lives of their own children over their desire to see tax cuts for the wealthy.
I’m also, in general, “against the idiots that burn American flags…”. But I think banning flag burning would do more harm than good, as I assume Scalia did. I also think it’s easiest to interpret the Constitution in a way that allows flag burning, but this isn’t a literal reading, of course – the Constitution doesn’t mention flag burning. But the first is still more important to me, and I think ultimately, to everyone. Even if the Constitution didn’t say what it said, I still think society is better off in the long run if things like flag burning are legal. I think it’s likely Scalia did too, whatever he says. If you thought a Constitutional ruling would result in the imminent and irreversible extinction of the human race, and you were the swing vote who could find some way to rule the other way with some unusual textual justification, I’d assume you’d choose to not doom humanity to oblivion just on some principle.
And I think that’s generally how justices rule, whether they admit it or not – what would do the most harm? Maybe the harm comes from the perception of violating the text of the Constitution (and thus being much more likely to lead to chaos down the line), or something else. But ultimately, that’s what they’re doing, IMO. And I recognize that this is unprovable and unfalsifiable (as is your understanding), since we are unable to read minds.
No, certainly I didn’t. Post 49 came after post 37, to take one example, and post 37 mentioned all sorts of other programs. Post 49 was written in that context, not replying to a CHIP only question.
A tax cut is not a gift.
Taxes are money you take away from people. A tax cut merely means you take away less money. A mugger doesn’t “gift” you by agreeing to only take your wallet and letting you keep your gold wedding ring.
Not running. Choosing to not address drooling moronic posts is not running. Tax cuts are not gifts. The liberal idea that reality can be be reshaped by choosing new vocabulary continues to entertain me.
It used to depress me, but now I realize how few state legislatures and state governors are Democrats, and how the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands. (Admittedly an asterisk on the White House, but at least it’s not liberal). So now it just amuses me.
Gosh, I hope I’m not triggering you.
I’m still intrigued by Bricker’s legal theory that the spending power of the U.S. government is Constitutionally limited by…itself. 
The only circumstance where this argument isn’t complete and total bullshit would be if taxes were illegal. Where’s that in the constitution?
If taxes aren’t unconstitutional, then the government is totally within their rights to ask for exactly as much money as the senators and such decide is legal, through law, that thing they make. At this point the tax money isn’t yours any more. Legally. Don’t like it? Sucks to be you, then.
But your bullshit argument is entirely beside the point anyway. I didn’t say the taxes were the gift, I said the tax cut is. The change in law itself. And the change in law in question is totally a boon to rich people.
Honestly the only non-bullshit argument for saying the tax cut isn’t a gift is saying that the rich people instead paid for it. With bribes. You are welcome to make this argument.
Damn, I was hoping you’d address some of your own posts, but such is life.
Semantics. They’re a change from the status quo whose benefits will go to some but not others.
Maybe we should invent a new word, just for your sake. We’ll call it a Brift. Anyhow, the top 1% are slated to receive a $1.5 trillion Brift, and CHIP could be paid for if the Brift was knocked down to a mere $1.492 trillion.
There ya go. No more bothersome word.
Hey, we were satisfied with the old vocabulary. You were the one who insisted that we shouldn’t use it. But if that entertains you, I’m good with that.
He’s actually got a point there (for once, as far as this thread is concerned.) The constitution not only lays out how the government is structured, but also both its powers and limitations. For example, the constitution says the government can’t set the tax rate at “30%, and all your guns”. (More’s the pity.)
Of course, he’s totally full of crap about what he’s saying (and implying) the actual limitations are. This is likely because he’s of the opinion the constitution is nowhere near as limiting on government power as he wishes it were. And so he tries to convince us it’s what he wishes it were, instead of what it is. (Er, on the off chance we’re congressmen and/or judges and so distorting our opinion will alter actual law?)