It requires a formal declaration of war, like I said.
That is very different. To authorize us to go after the pirates, the Congress used the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which is also in the Constitution. It was explicitly meant to go after non nation threats such as the pirates.
You can’t seriously think that the Founders would compare the limited military engagement with the pirates to the Vietnam War and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars which lasted nearly a decade? Do you think the Founders would approve of decade long, trillions costing wars without a declaration of war? (not to mention being based on lies and propaganda).
I think the answer speaks for itself.
I already did. You weren’t paying attention, so here you go:
**ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; **
This means that the power to go to war rests with the Congress alone. The president does not have these powers. The president can respond to an imminent invasion or emergency, but this has virtually never happened in our history. Presidents cannot unilaterally take the nation to war.
Its a judgement call, I guess. I think it is fairly reasonable to judge his actions by the actions of his father. They have both said that in most cases they would vote identically. I agree that Rand Paul is very new on the political scene and we don’t know exactly how he will vote. I think he is the best candidate and he needs to develop a track record before we judge him. I am assuming he will follow in his fathers footsteps.
Yeah, cause things are going so well at the moment. We don’t have a problem in the world. :rolleyes:
It cracks me up when people make these claims that balancing the budget, greater accountability, restoring individual liberty and reforming our financial system would bring our country to ruin. We have been trying it your way for decades. We have followed Keynesian economics, deficit spending, continuous wars, more and more regulations and growing government for at least forty years. And we have a mess. The one philosophy that hasn’t been tried in recent history is demonized.
You want the keep the status quo. I want to change things for the better. Change is sometimes a scary thing, but it has never been so urgently needed.
Which of his ideas are so horrible if enacted?
And it WON’T be undone. Obama is continuing the Bush agenda on all accounts. This is probably the thing that pisses me off the most about the liberals these days. They rag on Bush all day long but posture like Obama is “cleaning up” the mess that Bush left. That is such bullshit. He is continuing everything Bush did. Admit it.
The primary reason is that government control of medicine is an option that is not available to us. There is no possible way to afford the cost. To bring costs down we must encourage out of pocket payment and free price fluctuation. I am going to side with freedom on this one. You say that what people need and what they want are not always the same. This is true. But how many people who are really sick want anything other than the best available treatment? The notion of a powerful government forcing people to do “what is best for them” is an authoritarian nightmare. I don’t know about other people, but if I get sick I want the choice to go to any doctor and I want prices to be low enough that I can pay out of pocket for my care.
Free Market health care would provide for the maximum number of people and reduce the deficit by getting government out of the way.
What is the point? I agree “any form of discrimination is inconsistent with American values.” True enough. And as surely as the sky is blue, Sen. Gerald Neal did not actually see what Rand Paul said, but used the resultant “controversy” to posture like the opportunistic politician he is. The issue at hand is the difference between public property and private property and the Constitution. This matter is settled history, but what about eminent domain cases? What about having to get a permit to build something on the land that you “own”? The issue extends way beyond the Civil Rights bill.
It is not something I expect Sen. Gerald Neal (or you, apparently) to properly comprehend. Its a media circus and a controversy has been created. Yay.
That isn’t the same as size; we just had 8 years of a Republican presidency spending money like water as they tend to, and then a Democrat having to try to repair the damage by stimulus packages among other things. Money and size aren’t the same thing.
And no, the government wasn’t big enough in 1997; it has left many things undone that it should have been doing.
Ridiculous. Either the government would be crippled since it would always be decades behind the times; or it would streamline the Amendment process drastically in order to function which would soon result in the constitution been changed all out of shape.
They are called civil rights. Unlike panic over the size of the government, they actually do some good.
Sure, i’d be happy to see massive cuts in the military budget. And we can spend it on universal health care, rebuilding the infrastructure, and other neglected aspects of government. There’s no inherent virtue in a government being small.
No, it would drastically raise prices because when it comes to medicine, “what the market will bear” is “everything”. And it would result in mass death due to vast amounts of fraud and incompetence; we know that because that’s how medicine used to be before that evil, evil government clamped down. And it certainly wouldn’t provide for the “maximum number of people”; anyone who wasn’t profitable to treat would be left to die.
We need to go the opposite direction, with some form of UHC.
Its obvious to me. I think he knew what was happening about three minutes into the Maddow interview. He could foresee the political ramifications of his answers. If he did just answer “yes” to that question, they it would be edited down and played repeatedly, out of context, to make Rand Paul appear to be a bigot. So, on the one hand you will criticize him for not answering the question, but on the other hand he was being set up and he knew it.
He never supported repealing the Civil Rights Act, although it is being portrayed that he does. The media is being so dishonest in it reporting. They will try to make this THE issue until the election in November. Can you imagine what would happen if he said yes to that answer? It is not what he believes and the context of his discussion would be completely distorted.
The media should be reporting on his proposed solutions to current problems rather than his philosophic discussion of the effect of one title out of ten of a fifty year old bill that will never be touched. We need an honest media to report these stories fairly so voters can make up their minds.
Even so, what would prompt the need for that level of increase in spending in such a short amount of time? Weren’t we doing significantly better in 1997 than we are today? I could probably calculate (just for you) the actual amount the government has grown (new departments, personnel, military, etc) and the number would be quite large as well.
We don’t have the money to afford this. Would you at least agree with that?
Okay, this is ridiculous. What kind of emergency “event” would necessitate a rapid, unconstitutional expansion of government size and power? If we are talking military threats, our firepower so outmatches any enemy that that cannot be it. So, what would this “event” be?
What are you talking about? I have answered virtually every reply and I am outnumbered 100 to 1! If I missed yours, sorry, no hard feelings. Why don’t you jog my memory?
Here’s one, for a start.
This was more to the original point of the thread and specifically regarding your post right before this about the ‘character assasination’ going on with respect to Rand and his position that he doesn’t support the private business part of the CRA. It isn’t about anything being repealed now, but your statement about “if he was around at the time, he would have forced further debate”
The simple fact is that if the CRA was passed without the part pertaining to private businesses, then the whites only lunch counters and the like would not have been affected at all and would have been able to continue business as usual. So holding this belief as he does, and you do, then why wouldn’t he just answer the question of whether he feels that lunch counters etc should still be able to serve whites only. This is the real life implication of his position. You cannot get away from that fact. You can go on and on about the complexities of this and the constitutionality of that, and its all well and good in theory. However, the real world happens in reality not in theory. So why was he so unwilling to say yes to that question if that is the obvious logical real world result of his position? Why wouldn’t he just answer the question?
So I was commenting on the idea that if Rand had been in office when this amendment was being debated, his position would have been that the private business part shouldn’t have applied. Therefore I have to assume he would have done what he could to get the amendment passed without that section, or he would have at least argued for that. I was asking about how you could refuse to answer a simple question about the practical result of a particular position that you (or he) held if you (or he) truly believe that.
I will not. I could point out health care reform, banking reform, withdrawal from Iraq, and any number of other reforms, but you will simply hand wave them away as not going far enough, or having some other flaw you find intolerable. Your ideological zealotry is incapable of being reasoned with. Admit it.
Huh? How is the health care boondoggle a reimbursement of health care costs? When the hell was the federal government the keeper of my health care dollars? Prior to their, you know, inexorably assuming them at this point. When did they have the majority of education dollars? And even if they did, how is their getting the hell out of something (education) analogous to them getting into another arena (taking over health care)?
Hey, you wanna live problem free, go find an island somewhere.
These would be great - I just have no confidence either of the Pauls could deliver them in any but the most temporary sense, and not without creative massive problems elsewhere.
Those two things aren’t analagous, but those aren’t what I was talking about. You’ve got it rather backwards, in fact. jrodenfeld is advocating for getting government into education (in the form of vouchers for all students while simultaneously funding public schools), but also claiming that Medicare and Medicaid have significantly damaged health care.
Considering what happened in our past history, I don’t have such a rosy view.
There were times in our past, where businesses used to put up signs such as:
- no dogs or Irish allowed
- no Chinamen allowed.
- no wops allowed
and of course the ever popular - no niggers allowed.
For a real treat, think on the concept of “sundown towns”. Uh huh. Just good Americans defending their property values and keeping “Them” out of “our” good American stores and businesses. Uh huh.
If the businesses are allowed to do this in a town or county, then where do these “undesirables” go for their food and other necessities? The next town or county? What if that next town or county is pulling the same stunt?
OK, so maybe this can be handled in a “separate but equal” way? It wasn’t so equal.
Read your history. Government got involved because “free market” was not correcting it and showed no interest in ever correcting it.
But it’s ridiculous. No matter if you are white, black, brown, yellow, your money will still be green. So how’s that work?