I'm socially ________ and fiscally ________. (fill in the blanks)

[patteeu]

We've all heard others describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most of us have described ourselves that way at some point. I've done it before, but I've started avoiding that phrase because I think it means radically different things to different people.

For example, in petez28's recent thread (So, you say you aren't just a party line type of person?), here's a list of people who embrace the description (so far):

Rain Man
Dave Lane
Mr. Flopnuts
chiefzilla1501
crispystl420
AustinChief
FishingRod
Amnorix

That's a pretty varied group of ideologies. So, vote in the poll and let's find the socially conservative, fiscally liberal people.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's also in the Fed's interest to not give them anything and leave it to the states, where it would be temporary because they can't print money to keep the game from expanding.

Now, if you're arguing for limits, then we can't keep expanding the welfare state with things like Obamacare where there's even more subsidies for the most expensive item a person needs.

I know you have states on the brain. You haven't heard of anything that shouldn't be at the states.

Sorry not in favor to take it to the states. It benefits everyone, it needs to stay at the federal level.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So for the sake of clarity. Let’s say that we have a barge cutting across the bay in Seattle and it is stuck by lightning and catches fire. If a navy ship is in the area, ordering it to render assistance would be a violation of the constitution . Right?

I like how he prefixed this bogus scenario with a "So for the sake of clarity..."

[Taco John]

So for the sake of clarity - let's say a chinese dog was running across the US/Mexico border to attack a playground full of 3 year olds. Congress hasn't declared war on that dog, but a soldier shoots him anyway. Should that soldier go to Jail for breaking the constitution? For the sake of clarity...

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I know you have states on the brain. You haven't heard of anything that shouldn't be at the states.

Sorry not in favor to take it to the states. It benefits everyone, it needs to stay at the federal level.

That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

I don't mean that as an insult it's just what it is. Ignorance can be handled with education.

There's no Constitutional authority for the Feds to be involved in welfare for any special interest group. That includes victim groups. General as in the "general welfare" refers to the nation as a whole. Spending is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers under Congress, not just because someone likes the idea something would benefit every individual. That's collectivist thinking.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

I don't mean that as an insult it's just what it is. Ignorance can be handled with education.

There's no Constitutional authority for the Feds to be involved in welfare for any special interest group. That includes victim groups. General as in the "general welfare" refers to the nation as a whole. Spending is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers under Congress, not just because someone likes the idea something would benefit every individual. That's collectivist thinking.

Your interpretation of the constitution is not the final authority on how to interpret the constitution. And the fact that no Republicans are saying welfare is unconstitutional even though they hate it says your interpretation is wrong.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Your interpretation of the constitution is not the final authority on how to interpret the constitution.

I don't interpret it. I simply read what it says.

And the fact that no Republicans are saying welfare is unconstitutional even though they hate it says your interpretation is wrong.

Then you don't know many Republicans.They have just resigned themselves to the New Deal court decisions which turned things upside down.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Taco John

So for the sake of clarity - let's say a chinese dog was running across the US/Mexico border to attack a playground full of 3 year olds. Congress hasn't declared war on that dog, but a soldier shoots him anyway. Should that soldier go to Jail for breaking the constitution? For the sake of clarity...

Is the Chinese dog running across the border into Mexico or into the US?

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

*scratches head*

Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?

EDIT: Here's why I'm confused. This is from a previous thread on the issue:





So you do not describe yourself as pro-choice or pro-life. How would you describe your position?

Disgusted and resigned.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not the scenario I commented on based on what you stated.

A navy ship is federal property under the Constitution. That is with a capital "C" not a lower case "c" which you used.

Article I, Section. 8

"To provide and maintain a Navy;"

It helps to read the list of enumerated powers.

It is just a really small natural disaster what is the difference?

[PaulAllen]

Man, I miss Carlin.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by PaulAllen

Man, I miss Carlin.

Why? If it makes you feel any better, you can watch him on youtube.

[PaulAllen]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why?

He died.