Ontopic I thought that ....

Casper said:
Ara, I just finished reading the article you referenced. Can you show me current (ten years or newer) blunders caused by the 17th Amendment (not the Senate)? That document is written in the context of 1913 and is mostly hyperbole.
Click to expand...

For one thing unfunded mandates such as UHCR bill would never passed the Senate. Nor would Congress be able to bully the states into passing laws. If the states wanted to keep their funding (i.e. 21 for alcohol consumption or lose highway funding).
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Bingo. People by and large want the illusion of safety and free stuff/or "free stuff" for others because they themselves feel guilty about not helping.
Click to expand...

Successful people should support the government that allows them to flourish. Nobody argues for the illusion of safety. What good is illusion? We want security. You share this same need and it's obvious. You view your taxes paid to the purportedly 'useless' government as a drain on your financial security. We manifest our security needs differently I suppose. I realize that if I shit on the poor and demoralized masses long enough, they'll probably kill me. By supporting them, I'm supporting my own lifestyle and yours.
 
Casper said:
Successful people should support the government that allows them to flourish. Nobody argues for the illusion of safety. What good is illusion? We want security. You share this same need and it's obvious. You view your taxes paid to the purportedly 'useless' government as a drain on your financial security. We manifest our security needs differently I suppose. I realize that if I shit on the poor and demoralized masses long enough, they'll probably kill me. By supporting them, I'm supporting my own lifestyle and yours.
Click to expand...

No, I can provide security for myself thank you very much.

And lets be clear, I'm talking about limits on Federal government, what the states do is an entirely different matter.

The federal government should only be concerened with defending the citizens from foreign attackers.
 
Arátoeldar said:
For one thing unfunded mandates such as UHCR bill would never passed the Senate.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if the Senate was picked by the Legislature, the Health Care Bill would not have passed? Pure conjecture, sir. It sounds like you just don't like the Senate. Period. Has nothing to do with the 17th Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

Nor would Congress be able to bully the states into passing laws. If the states wanted to keep their funding (i.e. 21 for alcohol consumption or lose highway funding).
Click to expand...

That isn't bullying. The states weren't forced to change their drinking age, they were incentivised. See Louisiana.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
No, I can provide security for myself thank you very much.

And lets be clear, I'm talking about limits on Federal government, what the states do is an entirely different matter.

The federal government should only be concerened with defending the citizens from foreign attackers.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to persuade you with that. I was stating my opinion. We can agree to disagree to that extent. :)
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Bingo. People by and large want the illusion of safety and free stuff/or "free stuff" for others because they themselves feel guilty about not helping.
Click to expand...

you were merely agreeing because he said "until the chickens come home." with your penchant for buying homes it was an obvious ploy

played you like a harp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back