Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

[lonewolf]

But don't forget he is skilled at fucking and therefore has 5 kids and he is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Skilled? For some reason, skilled is not one of the words that come to mind.

[Banned]

Point well made Joe, but what about the people who are less able to take care of themselves. What about the guy who is a good guy but has no skills and therefore makes little to no money? But don't forget he is skilled at fucking and therefore has 5 kids and he is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Come on we all know him... What about him?

He goes to work at a lower paying job. Not everyone can have a nice high paying job. He does not buy a house that he cannot afford. He does not buy a car he cannot afford and lives within his means. He does not go out and buy 3 color TVs, 2 dvd players, iphones, ipods, top of line computers.

Dude, my parents were dirt poor when I was growing up.
Living that way is a good character builder, look how great I turned out.

What did mankind do for 1000's of years before Uncle Sam put people on welfare? You know this country existed for 150 before we turned socialist. How did those people do it?

[JackANSI]

I was going to say something back as overblown out of proportion as you did, jackansi, but I'm going to maintain control. I will say that the best point you have made on this site so far is that you can't control yourself or your emotional responses very well. There's apparently only room for one opinionated know it all on this site, so I can see why you might wish that I was dead.

I might be a bit lame, but I'm definitely not brainless. You fancy yourself as intelligent--enough to pass judgement on programs led by teams of brilliant folks with advanced degrees. I have to tell you, you aren't the only smart person on this site. I'm not going to start a pissing contest with you, but suffice to say, I and many others here who disagree with your politics are far from dumb.

Just to clarify, I don't know if your mom would even need breast augmentation, i don't know anything about her at all. It was a hypothetical. I certainly hope she is well and I wouldn't wish that she would have aborted you, even though I don't like you very much anymore. Apparently your mom's boobs are a very sensitive issue with you. So I'll turn it around. I wouldn't want to pay for MY mom to have a boob job. I hope that makes you feel better and that it will help you to regain some control.

I'd rather you DIAF, punk.

Ah but wait, there is more. You can't expect to make a comment like that and not piss someone off or even act all butthurt that someone did respond in a pissed off manor. You can act like you're going to play the "better man" role, but you made the first step down this path. Take some resposibility and apologize.

Otherwise, may you fail at everything you do.

[hicksjd9]

DIAF. You want me to die in a fire? That's nice. I'm definitely not going to apologize to you. They put you in charge of people? Really? Does it matter who started it? Are we 12?

I love how some (I say some, because there are some very level-headed, and decent democrats on here) democrats preach compassion and say that republicans are cold and unfeeling (like with health care, for instance), but when the gloves come off when they don't get their way, this behavior is what they resort to. I would never wish for you or anyone else to die, even though you've wished it on me twice--twice!--in this thread already. And then I am bad because I brought a hypothetical mom who I never met and will never know into it!!! Shame on me for using a hypothetical to prove a point! I don't see how I live with myself (Maybe I'll go die in a fire. I think my schedule is clear this Tuesday).

What I said wasn't a personal attack on your mom. I don't know her. I don't plan on ever knowing her. You could have been grown in a lab for all I know! Maybe my boob comment should have been directed at the lab assistant? No one as smart as you think you are would ever take it as a personal attack. Get real. I'm pretty sure that's why the dude after your post gave you the googley eyes, you went and continue to go WAY overboard.

The only reason I directed the comment at you specifically was because your logic is consistently faulty. Back alley abortions? Sensationalistic rhetoric. Numbers, man! Facts. Unbiased sources. Don't you always preach this? See if you can find the numbers I did. They prove my point, so maybe you won't want to find them. Maybe someone's been doing research watching their collector's edition Dirty Dancing DVD?

I honestly think you should take a minute and sort through your thought processes before you completely destroy all of your credibility. Regroup. Seriously.
[/u][/i]

[tornandfrayed]

Guys, you are both way off on all this. You both have way more in common then you think.

Joe, the guy should not live above his means. I try not to. I am a liberal democrat but in my office and in my home I have a mantra that I try to live by and teach my children.

1. God Above All
2. Integrity
3. Financial Independence
4. Strong Family Values
5. Love All Others

Now obviously I struggle with the "Love All Others" portion of this but I do believe in fiscal responsibility. I also know from experience that the biggest risks have the most potential gain.

This thread is about taking a gun to a presidential rally. Does anyone really believe that is part of our inherent "Right to bear arms". If you do then what about 1/2 the people on your next flight to Dollyland packing? Is it still OK? How about 3 guys with guns at Aldos at the next Flame Sky show?

If you think that it is OK to take the gun to a Sarah Palin rally then when dopes it no become OK? When is it like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?

PS

Just a thought, if the world suddenly lost our tech, electric and modern conveniences would you be the one pulling people together and trying to help everyone or would you build a wall to keep people out and think every man for himself?

[onegunguitar]

Hahahahahahahaha-gotta love RockPage.

[whitedevilone]

I've packed heat at Flame Sky shows many times.I asure you i wasn't alone.As a matter of fact,i'm betting there were at least two on stage.

[hicksjd9]

I love this:

I am a liberal democrat but in my office and in my home I have a mantra that I try to live by and teach my children.

1. God Above All
2. Integrity
3. Financial Independence
4. Strong Family Values
5. Love All Others

Great perspective.

[Banned]

If you do then what about 1/2 the people on your next flight to Dollyland packing? Is it still OK? How about 3 guys with guns at Aldos at the next Flame Sky show?

If just 1 person was packing on one of the planes hijacked on 9/11, he easily could have held off a raghead with a box cutter.

1 gun beats 4 buys with boxcutters.

I do carry to Flame Sky shows. (To bad they are now defunct, but long live the new band Blak Sunn.) I carry quite often. Whoever wants to carry, go ahead. That is the history of this country.

One student carrying would have stopped the mass slaughter at VA Tech last year.

[bassist_25]

[JackANSI]

DIAF. You want me to die in a fire? That's nice. I'm definitely not going to apologize to you. They put you in charge of people? Really? Does it matter who started it? Are we 12?

I love how some (I say some, because there are some very level-headed, and decent democrats on here) democrats preach compassion and say that republicans are cold and unfeeling (like with health care, for instance), but when the gloves come off when they don't get their way, this behavior is what they resort to. I would never wish for you or anyone else to die, even though you've wished it on me twice--twice!--in this thread already. And then I am bad because I brought a hypothetical mom who I never met and will never know into it!!! Shame on me for using a hypothetical to prove a point! I don't see how I live with myself (Maybe I'll go die in a fire. I think my schedule is clear this Tuesday).

What I said wasn't a personal attack on your mom. I don't know her. I don't plan on ever knowing her. You could have been grown in a lab for all I know! Maybe my boob comment should have been directed at the lab assistant? No one as smart as you think you are would ever take it as a personal attack. Get real. I'm pretty sure that's why the dude after your post gave you the googley eyes, you went and continue to go WAY overboard.

The only reason I directed the comment at you specifically was because your logic is consistently faulty. Back alley abortions? Sensationalistic rhetoric. Numbers, man! Facts. Unbiased sources. Don't you always preach this? See if you can find the numbers I did. They prove my point, so maybe you won't want to find them. Maybe someone's been doing research watching their collector's edition Dirty Dancing DVD?

I honestly think you should take a minute and sort through your thought processes before you completely destroy all of your credibility. Regroup. Seriously.
[/u][/i]

Wow you're good at trying to turn it around on me. I'll never have anything good to say about you or anythig you do.

[songsmith]

Lets forget about the "plan" for a moment. Why is all this only about health care? Aren't there more important things than health care?

I will attempt to rank daily living needs:

1. Air, hard for government to regulate, so mostly free.

2. Water, much more important than health care, shouldn't the government pay for all our water. I have to pay for mine. Can't live more than a few days without water.

3. Food, can't live more than a week or so without food. The government should give us all free food.

4. Shelter, we all need a place to live, warm in the winter, cool in the summer. Free housing should be available to all.

5. A Job. Government should guarantee us all a job. A well paying, room to advance, job.

6. Transportation. Have to get to that job, so the government should provide us all a free car, van or truck.

7. Day care. If you have children, how are you going to do your guaranteed job if you don't have free government day care?

8. Education. A free education, up to the level you want. If you want a college degree, it should be free. Graduate level, for free. Why not?

9. Now is where Health Care should fit in, IMO.

After these basic needs are provided by the government, what is next could be up for discussion. Here are a few things I would like.

Steelers Tickets

Free Cable and internet access

Allman Brothers Band playing in Blair Co. ballpark

Gourmet beans on demand

Here is a link to read up on the hierarchy of needs, maybe we can think up a few more that the government can take care of for us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

How about if we replace "government" with your right-wing alternative, "business:"

1. Air. Before being regulated by (gulp) the Gov't, business simply pumped all the crap they wanted into the air. Without regulation, they would do it again.
2. Water. Also without oversight, the Juniata River would look like it did when I was a kid... black and smelly. Why would business give a shyte about clean water, unless they could sell it for $1.50 a bottle?
3. Food. Food would be a lot cheaper in the free market without regulation, right? But with nobody watching, would business always deliver the safest food? The free-market theory says it would have to, just to compete, but free-market theory also says you should pay the least amount and sell the most amount. Food safety be damned, it happens now, even with people watching for it.
4. Shelter. Business lobbied a conservative Congress to have rules removed so that they could sell bad debts to someone else, then to someone else, then to someone else, and suddenly my house is worth less. How? Nobody was watching, and someone in business realized it.
5. Business should guarantee us all a job... unless a Chinese kid can do it cheaper. Some jobs in the business ruling elite class pay a thousandfold what a lower class makes, based on how successfully a person exploits labor, customers, and investors, to the benefit of the elite. Seems pretty fair, right, Joe?
6. Transportation. Have to get to that job... so you pay whatever the petroleum companies force you to pay. If it's too high, you're just not working hard enough, I guess, and you should be more successful.
7. Daycare. Business is business. Generally speaking, your kids are YOUR problem, and if they get in the way of your job, YOU'RE FIRED. Too bad, so sad, buh-bye.
8. Education. Business requires more education now than ever, or you will under no circumstances, ever be among business elite, which is the obvious goal of all. In order to GET an education, under conservatism, you would already have to be among the business elite. The only way for poor to be rich is by doing lots of hard work for the rich.
9. Healthcare. Business says that you are most vulnerable when you're sick, and vulnerability equals profit. You should give up your house if you get really sick. People should just die when their savings runs out. Or, simply pass on the cost to people who can pay via higer rates... it's not like the company can lower margins, for Pete's sake.

I do, however agree on the Allmans at BCB. And gourmet beans. --->JMS

[hicksjd9]

Songsmith, I agree with many of your points in the last post. I won't say that government shouldn't regulate certain things, but regulation and full control are two different things. Few industries would be completely altered the way that healthcare will be if the bill passes in its current form. I am for some form of government "help" when it comes to the uninsured. I don't mind regulation, but not control. I believe that gov't does need to regulate, but they need to give doctors/businesses/people as many choices as possible within those regulations.

The major wrench in this involves the controversial procedures and gray areas, this is where government just can't do a good job. Things that are questionable and don't directly involve someones health or are not life and death should not be covered.

[Banned]

Lets forget about the "plan" for a moment. Why is all this only about health care? Aren't there more important things than health care?

I will attempt to rank daily living needs:

1. Air, hard for government to regulate, so mostly free.

2. Water, much more important than health care, shouldn't the government pay for all our water. I have to pay for mine. Can't live more than a few days without water.

3. Food, can't live more than a week or so without food. The government should give us all free food.

4. Shelter, we all need a place to live, warm in the winter, cool in the summer. Free housing should be available to all.

5. A Job. Government should guarantee us all a job. A well paying, room to advance, job.

6. Transportation. Have to get to that job, so the government should provide us all a free car, van or truck.

7. Day care. If you have children, how are you going to do your guaranteed job if you don't have free government day care?

8. Education. A free education, up to the level you want. If you want a college degree, it should be free. Graduate level, for free. Why not?

9. Now is where Health Care should fit in, IMO.

After these basic needs are provided by the government, what is next could be up for discussion. Here are a few things I would like.

Steelers Tickets

Free Cable and internet access

Allman Brothers Band playing in Blair Co. ballpark

Gourmet beans on demand

Here is a link to read up on the hierarchy of needs, maybe we can think up a few more that the government can take care of for us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

How about if we replace "government" with your right-wing alternative, "business:"

1. Air. Before being regulated by (gulp) the Gov't, business simply pumped all the crap they wanted into the air. Without regulation, they would do it again.
2. Water. Also without oversight, the Juniata River would look like it did when I was a kid... black and smelly. Why would business give a shyte about clean water, unless they could sell it for $1.50 a bottle?
3. Food. Food would be a lot cheaper in the free market without regulation, right? But with nobody watching, would business always deliver the safest food? The free-market theory says it would have to, just to compete, but free-market theory also says you should pay the least amount and sell the most amount. Food safety be damned, it happens now, even with people watching for it.
4. Shelter. Business lobbied a conservative Congress to have rules removed so that they could sell bad debts to someone else, then to someone else, then to someone else, and suddenly my house is worth less. How? Nobody was watching, and someone in business realized it.
5. Business should guarantee us all a job... unless a Chinese kid can do it cheaper. Some jobs in the business ruling elite class pay a thousandfold what a lower class makes, based on how successfully a person exploits labor, customers, and investors, to the benefit of the elite. Seems pretty fair, right, Joe?
6. Transportation. Have to get to that job... so you pay whatever the petroleum companies force you to pay. If it's too high, you're just not working hard enough, I guess, and you should be more successful.
7. Daycare. Business is business. Generally speaking, your kids are YOUR problem, and if they get in the way of your job, YOU'RE FIRED. Too bad, so sad, buh-bye.
8. Education. Business requires more education now than ever, or you will under no circumstances, ever be among business elite, which is the obvious goal of all. In order to GET an education, under conservatism, you would already have to be among the business elite. The only way for poor to be rich is by doing lots of hard work for the rich.
9. Healthcare. Business says that you are most vulnerable when you're sick, and vulnerability equals profit. You should give up your house if you get really sick. People should just die when their savings runs out. Or, simply pass on the cost to people who can pay via higer rates... it's not like the company can lower margins, for Pete's sake.

I do, however agree on the Allmans at BCB. And gourmet beans. --->JMS

Why should business guarantee anyone anything????? The purpose of business it to return a profit on investments. Business does not exist to give people jobs or healthcare.

Fairly typical lame attempt. Demonstrative of your class envy and jealousy of anyone who works in business with a better job than you.

[songsmith]

Puh-leeze!
So nothing is business's responsibility. You are ALL about the free market's innate goodness, that govt doesn't create jobs or wealth, business does. You really are a sheep, a naive dupe who thinks that all must be sacrificed in the name of your company and your "leaders." Capitalism is the perfect system and NOTHING should ever impede it.
Govt is always wrong, and all business is honest and wants what's best for us.
Such a sucker. You feel just fine with allowing the "free market" to exploit you, but not the people we choose to elect. Why? Because it's easier to let a bunch of loudmouthed talking-heads to tell you what to think.
Class envy and jealousy? Why? I have a good marriage, a pleasant place to live, and zero wolves at the door. I work my ass off, and rock like a motherf*cker. I have it all! I know it's hard for you to imagine that anyone could think differently and still be happy, but here I am. Hell, I'm even happy with the level of healthcare I get... I'm just not buying the lies.--->JMS

[Hawk]

When will you guys get it ? Libertarians / conservatives only cares for themselves. They worship the almighty dollar. ANYTHING that will take away this almighty deity will be cursed upon by them. They do not want to be forced to help anyone. They some how believe dog eat dog is a way of life for themselves and therefore everyone else.

They will tell you that if all welfare or help of any kind to the weak and the mentally challenged or the physically challenged was not provided by government, that their "good will" donations would be enough.

I believe that the weak, physically and mentally challenged need our help. I believe it is society's responsibility and duty. They do not nor will they ever get that. but society needs to be organized. How ? By building a democracy. Yes government is our societal organization of the people and by the people.

So if the donations don't cover what it takes to make this a better place then tax is necessity.

And it's in the constitution.

These libertarian / conservative think that, "If I can do it (If I have to do it) so does everyone else. They must (in my opinion) have little respect for themselves. If they actually saw them selves as superior, they would do what ever it takes to help the lowly. They apparently see themselves as weak people, hence the, "If I can do it anybody can" attitude.


I have had some people who call them selves conservative tell me that something NEEDS to be done about health care. They just don't want the government involved. These kind of people don't necessarily fall into the "dog eat dog" mentality. But the rich and the powerful have convinced them that the government can't do it.

Business won't. Government shouldn't. Well where does that leave you ? To do nothing is shameful in today's society.

The government of the people has a duty to straighten this mess out under the constitution of the United States of America.


EDITED to include the following "paste'.

I would most definitely call lobbyists Political Factions. Who are out for themselves and not the whole of the people.

Yes, technically they are factions, but they are not political factions trying to overtly take over or rebel against the federal government. Geez, the title is:

"The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"

This is not a topic about lobbying to get favors for their special interests. They were writing about large groups of people banding together to overthrow the government, like the south in the Civil War.

That is the context of "factions" in the Federalist Papers, 9 & 10.

You can believe what you want, but if you try to read between the lines with the Federalist Papers, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

The text is very frank and they left very little, if anything, open to interpretation.

A faction is groups of people with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole of the people. Not limited to your North vs. South interpretation.

Of course there is no topic regarding lobbyists. It hadn't been conceived yet.

Under the Supreme Court ruling a corporation is equal to one person, with all of the same rights, and money IS free speech. Another thing the writers of the constitution never saw coming.

The lobbyists and those they represent ARE political factions. And they are for the good of themselves. Not for the good of the people. They have more power over the government than should be allowed. In a sence they can control congressional efforts away from the "general welfare" of the people. And they do.

"They are not political factions trying to take over...the federal government". Wake up - they already have taken over! Their power far exceeds what any writer of the constitution could have conceived!


So, the Federalists papers 9 and especially 10 (political factions - special interests) - in conjunction with Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution - Implied Powers (The "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause) does give the Federal Government under the Constitution power to regulate them.

This IS "The union as a safeguard against domestic faction". It's just that the factions used money instead of guns to overtake congress (and some presidents) and work against the "general welfare" of the people.

[songsmith]

One student carrying would have stopped the mass slaughter at VA Tech last year.

You're ignoring that one student carrying CAUSED the mass slaughter.

Hey, man, it's his Constitutional right! Everybody, no matter how mentally ill, has a right to use a gun to scare, hurt or kill anyone else, right? THIS is what scares me, it happens all the time. Name one person who's had their gun taken away without provocation.
You're so afraid that the big bad government (which you had a chance to elect) is going to take away the one thing that helps you feel like you have power. A gun is not a tool, or a toy to you... it's a handful of life-and-death. When you look at a gun, you imagine yourself wielding it as a hero. I have news for you: everyone who ever shot somebody on purpose thought they were doing something that needed to be done. When I look at a gun, I imagine myself wielding it as a target-shooter or hunter. No sick fantasies of shooting a person with it at all, for any reason. No home invaders. No abortion doctors. No terrorists. No muggers or rapists.
Beercans. Milk jugs. Squirrels, turkey, deer.
Nobody's taking your damn gun/manhood. It's more hot air from the folks who brought you "They're cancelling Christmas!"--->JMS

[witchhunt]

[lonewolf]

Your tax dollars at work--efficiencies in government spending:

[Banned]

Hey, man, it's his Constitutional right! Everybody, no matter how mentally ill, has a right to use a gun to scare, hurt or kill anyone else, right?

When you resort to absolute lunacy who can argue in your realm?

Who posted anywhere that someone has the right to kill anyone else?????????????????????????????

You have to go beyond the absurd to try and make a point.

Infantile.

[tornandfrayed]

Back to the topic though, do you not see the need to have a "No Gun" zone around the President of the USA? Really? A Lot of people thought Timothy McVey was a good old boy.

You really think that people should be able to carry guns on planes and to presidential rally's? The you too have entered the zone.

Come on really?

[zman1200]

Phil Donahue? Where are you when ROCK PAGE and the country need you I HATE NERDS

[lonewolf]

EDITED to include the following "paste'.

I would most definitely call lobbyists Political Factions. Who are out for themselves and not the whole of the people.

Yes, technically they are factions, but they are not political factions trying to overtly take over or rebel against the federal government. Geez, the title is:

"The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"

This is not a topic about lobbying to get favors for their special interests. They were writing about large groups of people banding together to overthrow the government, like the south in the Civil War.

That is the context of "factions" in the Federalist Papers, 9 & 10.

You can believe what you want, but if you try to read between the lines with the Federalist Papers, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

The text is very frank and they left very little, if anything, open to interpretation.

A faction is groups of people with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole of the people. Not limited to your North vs. South interpretation.

Of course there is no topic regarding lobbyists. It hadn't been conceived yet.

Under the Supreme Court ruling a corporation is equal to one person, with all of the same rights, and money IS free speech. Another thing the writers of the constitution never saw coming.

The lobbyists and those they represent ARE political factions. And they are for the good of themselves. Not for the good of the people. They have more power over the government than should be allowed. In a sence they can control congressional efforts away from the "general welfare" of the people. And they do.

"They are not political factions trying to take over...the federal government". Wake up - they already have taken over! Their power far exceeds what any writer of the constitution could have conceived!


So, the Federalists papers 9 and especially 10 (political factions - special interests) - in conjunction with Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution - Implied Powers (The "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause) does give the Federal Government under the Constitution power to regulate them.

This IS "The union as a safeguard against domestic faction". It's just that the factions used money instead of guns to overtake congress (and some presidents) and work against the "general welfare" of the people.

A Paste? You mean it didn't warrant its own post?

1st of all, your definition of "faction" is incorrect. The correct definition is:

a party or group (as within a government) with common beliefs that is often contentious or self-seeking.

A faction may or may not have interests contrary to the rights of others.

On to the meat...I was wondering when you might bring up the "General Welfare" clause. Liberals and/or progressives interpret this as a carte blanche to give Congress the authority to do whatever they want in the name of the welfare of the people. Sorry, it is nothing more than a precursor to the specific fiducial powers granted them by Article I, Section 8 and, once again, "implied powers" are limited only to those specific powers.

Don't agree with me? Mr. Madison does. You know, he's the guy who put the Constitution together. In his Federalist Paper #41, he goes into full detail about why he penned the "general welfare" clause and why it is NOT carte blanche. Here is an excerpt of the last four paragraphs of Federalist #41:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention.

How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! "

[Hawk]

Two things.

1. The "paste" was my "post" in another thread - 'Mo Government" I think.
2. You're wrong.

[mjb]

Two things.

1. The "paste" was my "post" in another thread - 'Mo Government" I think.
2. You're wrong.

nice comeback!