Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - Page 3

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 21 through 30 for Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 21 through 30. Go to page: 1  2  3   4  5 
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 21 Posted: 02:25 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
Odin, I would guess the dude is sort of referring to our current state of government in the USA, so to jump to a conclusion that he believes in a governing state similar to Haiti might be a stretch.

I notice you have a hard time finding the context of people's statements.

The Tea Party people deal with this non stop. They simply try to bring in front the issue of state vs federal power and most the time liberal thinkers sum the tea party up as purely anti government. That simply isn't true.

I for one can't believe any one is still stuck on choosing sides because it looks clear to me that the vast majority of our government is made up of self serving crooks from the left and the right.
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 22 Posted: 02:40 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
If you decry living in a "nanny-state," shouldn't you be willing to eschew police protection, the enforcement of contracts, and the myriad of other ways the state looks after you?

Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 23 Posted: 03:04 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
You just did it again...

That's obviously the same kind of stretch I was talking about in my statement so why would you reiterate the same thing?

maybe you should define what you think "nanny state" means because of all the people I know who would "decry a nanny sate" I can't think of one who would like to see an end to police protection. Your jumping a long way in that assumption. Why would they eschew something that they pay for and have no problem with?
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 24 Posted: 03:14 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
BTW... looking at that polititrack website with the truth detector being referenced in this post. I spent about 15 minutes and was able to debunk several claims made by that page.

It is very slanted and shouldn't be trusted... interesting nonetheless.
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 25 Posted: 03:45 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
I don't see that I've taken anything "out of context." What do you think that phrase means? Couldja cite specific sentences you believe I've taken out of context and what you believe is the proper context?

And I don't see that anything I've said is "a stretch." Blackstone described the social contract as the parts giving allegiance to the whole and the whole looking after the interests of the parts. Sportsmen, singly and in groups, are some of those parts and the notion that society looking after their interests constitutes a nanny state, while society looking after the interests of other individuals and groups (corporations, those beset by criminals, etc), doesn't constitute a nanny-state, is laughable.
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 26 Posted: 05:35 PM 10/24/10 (CST)
again. same thing.

SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 27 Posted: 06:48 AM 10/25/10 (CST)
Odin- you stated, "If you decry living in a "nanny-state," shouldn't you be willing to eschew police protection".

Dude...just read the constitution. It clearly states one of the express purposes of the United States Government would be to, "Provide for the common defense". Police protection is one of the very, very, very few legitimate purposes of a govenment as outlined in the constitution. In fact you will find in the constitution there are only three reasons for the government to even exist.

I know this is probably a shock to see this on the board from a PETA and Sierra Club member...but facts are facts dude.

See Ya. Have a chillaxin good day!

Get The Board!

SurfsUp
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 28 Posted: 10:12 AM 10/25/10 (CST)
Thanks for the lesson on the Constitution. Didja happen to notice the part about promoting the general welfare?

What would those only 3 reasons for govt to exist be?
SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 29 Posted: 10:46 AM 10/25/10 (CST)
Odin-

So you conceed the point concerning the "nanny state" or was this just an ad hominem?

As to the "general welfare" clause. Yes I noticed it. Have you researched it in its historical context? In essence , exactly what were the founders meaning by that phrase and what brought about its use".

A cursory overview of the Constitutional Convention will find that the General Welfare clause, as it became known, was a limitation of federal power written into the preamble of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin, during the Constitutional Convention, proposed a tax for canals. Canals were important for businesses to receive and ship merchandise.

Governor Morris of New York argued that it wasn't right to tax the whole people while only those towns that had canals would benefit. This started a discussion about the powers of the federal government to tax.

They finally came up with the General Welfare clause which the Founders meant that unless the whole people of the United States would benefit from the tax, you should not promote it. Only the general, or the whole, welfare of the people should benefit from the tax.

(Begin SurfsUp injection--I fail to see how a federal mandate and taxation to health insurance, etc. will benefit me..or a great many others..therefore it is a SPECIFIC welfare..not the GENERAL welfare. The framers of the Constitution would have rejected most of the so called, "Nanny State" taxes as illegitimate as they only benefit the few..but not the GENERAL or EVERYONES welfare. To the point of this thread... by Constitutional standards it would be unjust to tax the general population to the benefit of the sporting community..sorry guys. It is a benefit to MANY..but does not rise to the level of the GENEAL or EVERONES welfare. Therefore in a constitutional sense Michelle Bachman is totally in line with the founders to reject the general taxation dollars for the benefit of the few in the sporting community. In essence the framers believed that unless a tax was necessary for the benefit of EVERYONE..such as a military to defend them or an interstate road system to travel on...then DO NOT TAX PEOPLE! End SurfsUp Injection)

In those days of writing the Constitution they did not call what we now call welfare, welfare. They called it "poor relief". The concept of the term "welfare" for poor relief was unknown and is a false modern interpretation based upon the change of word meanings and not researching the original intent.

Get The Board!

SurfsUp

Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 30 Posted: 05:57 PM 10/25/10 (CST)

A coupla things -

Ad hominems are personal attacks. Calling him "reality-challenged" could correctly be construed as one but my response to his "nanny-state" comments was merely a logical extension of his position. I don't know that I can simplify that response further but if you'll explain the part you don't understand and/or think is a personal attack . . .

Reminds me of David Jungerman, the Missouri farmer who painted the side of a tractor trailer with the sign - ""Are you a producer or a parasite? Democrats - party of parasites." The Kansas City Star reported that since 1995, Jungerman received more than a million dollars in federal farm support subsidies. The dumbass said, "That's just my money coming back to me. I pay a lot in taxes. I'm not a parasite." He went on to say his sign was about people who don't pay any taxes but ""always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them."

It's doubtful that he paid over a million dollars in taxes the last 15 years but he thinks it's other people who're the parasites, kinda like some people who're helped/protected by govt think it's other people who're beneficiaries of a "nanny-state."

As for the Legacy Amendment, you know it amended the state and not the federal constitution, right? And that it also benefits the arts community and those who enjoy the arts? And that money directed by sportsmen groups to clean up the environment benefits more than just sportsmen?

You seem to believe we should be bound by the framers' Original Intent. Jefferson had a few things to say about that -

"This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:43

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burthen its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move something. They are axioms also pregnant with salutary consequences." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm
Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 21 through 30. Go to page: 1  2  3   4  5 
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    lmarty1359     loadmaster141    
Users Online:2
Guests Online:25
Total Online: 27


Terms and Conditions