|
Post by oldarmybear on Jan 23, 2020 19:26:31 GMT -5
The Federalist Papers are a collection of articles written by three of our founding fathers in support of the new Constitution of the United States. This kink goe to wiki for an expanded article with links to each of those papers. Follow this link to Wiki and the the links to each of the 85 Federalist Papers. Enjoy, read and learn... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 2, 2020 13:02:09 GMT -5
(last paragraph Federalist no.1, excerpt) "...It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. [1] This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address..." PUBLIUS. www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-1Indeed. The Federalist Papers did not propose a weak "confederacy" but a "union" whose glue was strong federal governance.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Feb 4, 2020 1:39:17 GMT -5
What surprises me is conservatives support a federalist govt. and the federalist papers, I would think they would support the anti-federalists if they're so hot on hating the feds and large govt.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 4, 2020 11:51:50 GMT -5
What surprises me is conservatives support a federalist govt. and the federalist papers, I would think they would support the anti-federalists if they're so hot on hating the feds and large govt. It is a puzzlement, isn't it? On the one hand, they're "small gummit" bunnies -- especially when it endeavors common-sense gun, environmental and corporate regulations, assist financially vulnerable citizens, or make health-insurance affordable for everyone. On the other hand, they're enthusiastic cheerleaders of a "big-gummit" that would intrude into citizens' reproductive choices or the gender of citizens' romantic and sexual partners. WTF?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2020 17:58:30 GMT -5
What surprises me is conservatives support a federalist govt. and the federalist papers, I would think they would support the anti-federalists if they're so hot on hating the feds and large govt. It is a puzzlement, isn't it? On the one hand, they're "small gummit" bunnies -- especially when it endeavors common-sense gun, environmental and corporate regulations, assist financially vulnerable citizens, or make health-insurance affordable for everyone. On the other hand, they're enthusiastic cheerleaders of a "big-gummit" that would intrude into citizens' reproductive choices or the gender of citizens' romantic and sexual partners. WTF? 1- the first set of conditions ARE not proper functions of government simply because YOU wish them to be. 2- The taking of the innocent independent life in the procedures of abortion is NOT "re[productive rights" , nor is using the government's validation of dysfunctional disorders.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 5, 2020 12:38:00 GMT -5
It is a puzzlement, isn't it? On the one hand, they're "small gummit" bunnies -- especially when it endeavors common-sense gun, environmental and corporate regulations, assist financially vulnerable citizens, or make health-insurance affordable for everyone. On the other hand, they're enthusiastic cheerleaders of a "big-gummit" that would intrude into citizens' reproductive choices or the gender of citizens' romantic and sexual partners. WTF? 1- the first set of conditions ARE not proper functions of government simply because YOU wish them to be. 2- The taking of the innocent independent life in the procedures of abortion is NOT "re[productive rights" , nor is using the government's validation of dysfunctional disorders.
1- Common-sense gun-regulations , environmental and corporate regulations, assistance to financially vulnerable citizens and making health-insurance affordable for every citizen are legitimate (and long-standing) functions of US governments, even if right-wingers and MAGAts wish them not to be. 2 - Exactly my point, eh Sparky? The MAGAt ethos: "Big gummit is baaaaad"!! Well, except when it is used as an instrument and enforcer of Christian prejudices. Then, not so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 12:43:53 GMT -5
1- the first set of conditions ARE not proper functions of government simply because YOU wish them to be. 2- The taking of the innocent independent life in the procedures of abortion is NOT "reproductive rights" , nor is using the government's validation of dysfunctional disorders.
1- Common-sense gun-regulations , environmental and corporate regulations, assistance to financially vulnerable citizens and making health-insurance affordable for every citizen are legitimate (and long-standing) functions of US governments, even if right-wingers and MAGAts wish them not to be. 2 - Exactly my point, eh Sparky? The MAGAt ethos: "Big gummit is baaaaad"!! Well, except when it is used as an instrument and enforcer of Christian prejudices. Then, not so much. 1- saying the OPPOSITE of what I said ,makes your statement NEITHER equal NOR valid. THESE conditions are either ones you are accustomed to or wish government to be; HOWEVER, the formation of this country is rooted in individual liberty and freedom. These "conditions" of yours for government is one that runs counter to our founding. 2- NOT at all. As we've said earlier, WHAT set of values or criteria is one to use in the making of laws if NOT absolutes and morals?
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 6, 2020 13:39:24 GMT -5
1- Common-sense gun-regulations , environmental and corporate regulations, assistance to financially vulnerable citizens and making health-insurance affordable for every citizen are legitimate (and long-standing) functions of US governments, even if right-wingers and MAGAts wish them not to be. 2 - Exactly my point, eh Sparky? The MAGAt ethos: "Big gummit is baaaaad"!! Well, except when it is used as an instrument and enforcer of Christian prejudices. Then, not so much. wl: saying the OPPOSITE of what I said ,makes your statement NEITHER equal NOR valid. Tuba: Pfffft. Writing your nonsense in the first place doesn't "...make your statement...valid". wl: THESE conditions are either ones you are accustomed to or wish government to be; Tuba: Which of them aren't current and long-standing functions of US governments? wl: HOWEVER, the formation of this country is rooted in individual liberty and freedom. These "conditions" of yours for government is one that runs counter to our founding. Tuba: I disagree that government services -- all of which are collectively financed by citizens, eh? -- are "counter" to any of the birthrights of American citizenship. wl: NOT at all. As we've said earlier, WHAT set of values or criteria is one to use in the making of laws if NOT absolutes and morals? Tuba: There are no "absolute morals". They are ever evolving. For example, in America it used to be "moral" to: enslave Black human-beings; exploit the labor of women and children; deny suffrage, legal standing and self-determination to citizens who weren't male and white; force citizens-of-color to use separate public facilities, services and accommodations; prohibit citizens from making their own reproductive-choices; criminalize citizens' private sexual behaviors; deny legal enfranchisement to same-gender marriages and families; dump sewage and industrial waste into waterways; use race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual-orientation and age to deny citizens' housing, employment or professional advancement; deny health-insurance coverage to the sick and/or impoverished etc. Aren't we glad they weren't absolute and immutable, eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 15:18:06 GMT -5
wl: saying the OPPOSITE of what I said ,makes your statement NEITHER equal NOR valid. Tuba: Pfffft. Writing your nonsense in the first place doesn't "...make your statement...valid". wl: THESE conditions are either ones you are accustomed to or wish government to be; Tuba: Which of them aren't current and long-standing functions of US governments? wl: HOWEVER, the formation of this country is rooted in individual liberty and freedom. These "conditions" of yours for government is one that runs counter to our founding. Tuba: I disagree that government services -- all of which are collectively financed by citizens, eh? -- are "counter" to any of the birthrights of American citizenship. wl: NOT at all. As we've said earlier, WHAT set of values or criteria is one to use in the making of laws if NOT absolutes and morals? Tuba: There are no "absolute morals". They are ever evolving. For example, in America it used to be "moral" to: enslave Black human-beings; exploit the labor of women and children; deny suffrage, legal standing and self-determination to citizens who weren't male and white; force citizens-of-color to use separate public facilities, services and accommodations; prohibit citizens from making their own reproductive-choices; criminalize citizens' private sexual behaviors; deny legal enfranchisement to same-gender marriages and families; dump sewage and industrial waste into waterways; use race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual-orientation and age to deny citizens' housing, employment or professional advancement; deny health-insurance coverage to the sick and/or impoverished etc. Aren't we glad they weren't absolute and immutable, eh?
1- going in circles with nothing of substance, as you continually do , is NOT retort nor substantive. 2- All the functions you mention , in the aggregate are NOT functions of government. Time is not a measure of application. 3- Your "disagreement" is NOT a valid criteria. 4- Your statement about NO ABSOLUTE MORALS is INCORRECT and reveals your lack of a grasp on reality! Slavery, jim crow laws proves my point as ABSOLUTES were NOT used to justify slavery, rather a substitution for them. suffrage is NOT a matter of ABSOLUTES. ABORTION is NOT a matter of reproductive rights andf most CERTAINLY is a violation of ABSOLUTES. As far as "private sexual matters" it was they who are afflicted with alternate sexual lifestyles that pushed their sexuality into the public forum, contrary to ABSOLUTES the have determined the dysfunctional disorder of those alternative lifestyles. Housing and sewage has NOTHING to do with ABSOLUTES. health insurance is NOT A PROPER MATTER for the government, no matter how confused and ignorant you remain. you reveal you haven't the capability of discernment and your attempt to blur distinctions doesn't work either!
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 7, 2020 11:28:29 GMT -5
1- going in circles with nothing of substance, as you continually do , is NOT retort nor substantive. 2- All the functions you mention , in the aggregate are NOT functions of government. Time is not a measure of application. 3- Your "disagreement" is NOT a valid criteria. 4- Your statement about NO ABSOLUTE MORALS is INCORRECT and reveals your lack of a grasp on reality! Slavery, jim crow laws proves my point as ABSOLUTES were NOT used to justify slavery, rather a substitution for them. suffrage is NOT a matter of ABSOLUTES. ABORTION is NOT a matter of reproductive rights andf most CERTAINLY is a violation of ABSOLUTES. As far as "private sexual matters" it was they who are afflicted with alternate sexual lifestyles that pushed their sexuality into the public forum, contrary to ABSOLUTES the have determined the dysfunctional disorder of those alternative lifestyles. Housing and sewage has NOTHING to do with ABSOLUTES. health insurance is NOT A PROPER MATTER for the government, no matter how confused and ignorant you remain. you reveal you haven't the capability of discernment and your attempt to blur distinctions doesn't work either!
wl:
going in circles with nothing of substance, as you continually do , is NOT retort nor substantive. Tuba:
Oh the irony. Pfffft. wl:All the functions you mention, in the aggregate are NOT functions of government. Time is not a measure of application. Tuba:Huh? How do you account for our governments, high and low, doing such things for over two-centuries, then? We thrive. Moreover, as moral standards have changed, American citizens' rights and liberties have been relentlessly expanded at the same time. Women's suffrage, voting rights, racially neutral access to public accommodations, transportation and schools, marriage equality, speech (we're using one of its most robust expansions right now), travel and nearly unfettered ownership and use of private firearms, quickly come to mind. wl:Your "disagreement" is NOT a valid criteria. Tuba:But you offer no actual argument to the contrary. Huffing and puffing an imperious dismissal isn't an honest response. wl: Your statement about NO ABSOLUTE MORALS is INCORRECT and reveals your lack of a grasp on reality! Slavery, jim crow laws proves my point as ABSOLUTES were NOT used to justify slavery, rather a substitution for them. suffrage is NOT a matter of ABSOLUTES. ABORTION is NOT a matter of reproductive rights andf most CERTAINLY is a violation of ABSOLUTES. As far as "private sexual matters" it was they who are afflicted with alternate sexual lifestyles that pushed their sexuality into the public forum, contrary to ABSOLUTES the have determined the dysfunctional disorder of those alternative lifestyles. Housing and sewage has NOTHING to do with ABSOLUTES. health insurance is NOT A PROPER MATTER for the government, no matter how confused and ignorant you remain. you reveal you haven't the capability of discernment and your attempt to blur distinctions doesn't work either! Tuba:Your homophobic and other twaddle notwithstanding, in the US (and I daresay elsewhere, too) standards of social morality and behavioral norms have been ever changeable. They have never been, nor are they now, immutable. The examples I noted amply demonstrate the fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 13:09:04 GMT -5
1- going in circles with nothing of substance, as you continually do , is NOT retort nor substantive. 2- All the functions you mention , in the aggregate are NOT functions of government. Time is not a measure of application. 3- Your "disagreement" is NOT a valid criteria. 4- Your statement about NO ABSOLUTE MORALS is INCORRECT and reveals your lack of a grasp on reality! Slavery, jim crow laws proves my point as ABSOLUTES were NOT used to justify slavery, rather a substitution for them. suffrage is NOT a matter of ABSOLUTES. ABORTION is NOT a matter of reproductive rights andf most CERTAINLY is a violation of ABSOLUTES. As far as "private sexual matters" it was they who are afflicted with alternate sexual lifestyles that pushed their sexuality into the public forum, contrary to ABSOLUTES the have determined the dysfunctional disorder of those alternative lifestyles. Housing and sewage has NOTHING to do with ABSOLUTES. health insurance is NOT A PROPER MATTER for the government, no matter how confused and ignorant you remain. you reveal you haven't the capability of discernment and your attempt to blur distinctions doesn't work either!
wl:
going in circles with nothing of substance, as you continually do , is NOT retort nor substantive. Tuba:
Oh the irony. Pfffft. wl:All the functions you mention, in the aggregate are NOT functions of government. Time is not a measure of application. Tuba:Huh? How do you account for our governments, high and low, doing such things for over two-centuries, then? We thrive. Moreover, as moral standards have changed, American citizens' rights and liberties have been relentlessly expanded at the same time. Women's suffrage, voting rights, racially neutral access to public accommodations, transportation and schools, marriage equality, speech (we're using one of its most robust expansions right now), travel and nearly unfettered ownership and use of private firearms, quickly come to mind. wl:Your "disagreement" is NOT a valid criteria. Tuba:But you offer no actual argument to the contrary. Huffing and puffing an imperious dismissal isn't an honest response. wl: Your statement about NO ABSOLUTE MORALS is INCORRECT and reveals your lack of a grasp on reality! Slavery, jim crow laws proves my point as ABSOLUTES were NOT used to justify slavery, rather a substitution for them. suffrage is NOT a matter of ABSOLUTES. ABORTION is NOT a matter of reproductive rights andf most CERTAINLY is a violation of ABSOLUTES. As far as "private sexual matters" it was they who are afflicted with alternate sexual lifestyles that pushed their sexuality into the public forum, contrary to ABSOLUTES the have determined the dysfunctional disorder of those alternative lifestyles. Housing and sewage has NOTHING to do with ABSOLUTES. health insurance is NOT A PROPER MATTER for the government, no matter how confused and ignorant you remain. you reveal you haven't the capability of discernment and your attempt to blur distinctions doesn't work either! Tuba:Your homophobic and other twaddle notwithstanding, in the US (and I daresay elsewhere, too) standards of social morality and behavioral norms have been ever changeable. They have never been, nor are they now, immutable. The examples I noted amply demonstrate the fact. Again you go round and round because you haven't a solid foundational premise to fall back on AND much of what you 'base" your answers on is your own flawed thinking and opinion. 1- No irony. your repeating the opposite of what I say neither establishes your statements as true nor equal 2- You confuse minimal functions of government as a license to do anything and everything. OUR Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to limit government. Just look at the amendments , like the 1st. They are RESTRICTIONS of power on the government, not a grant of power. Also MORAL ABSOLUTES do NOT change. 3- You are dismissed because your statements and reasoning is absurd. 4-A phobia (from the Greek: f?ß??,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The meaning in the Greek language has NOT changed. There is NO such thing as homophobia, as a "phobia" is a fear of something. A "homo" phobia would be a fear of homosexuals, and what you mislabel as a phobia is actually a legitimate disapproval of a deviant behavior. Your non- acceptance of that genuine disapproval doesn't legitimize the distorted presentation of what a phobia is.
|
|
|
Post by katie5445 on Feb 9, 2020 0:15:12 GMT -5
Well that was an extremely lame go at a subject.
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 9, 2020 12:08:21 GMT -5
wale: Again you go round and round because you haven't a solid foundational premise to fall back on AND much of what you 'base" your answers on is your own flawed thinking and opinion.1- No irony. your repeating the opposite of what I say neither establishes your statements as true nor equal 2- You confuse minimal functions of government as a license to do anything and everything. OUR Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to limit government. Just look at the amendments , like the 1st. They are RESTRICTIONS of power on the government, not a grant of power. Also MORAL ABSOLUTES do NOT change. 3- You are dismissed because your statements and reasoning is absurd.4-A phobia (from the Greek: f?ß??,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The meaning in the Greek language has NOT changed. There is NO such thing as homophobia, as a "phobia" is a fear of something. A "homo" phobia would be a fear of homosexuals, and what you mislabel as a phobia is actually a legitimate disapproval of a deviant behavior. Your non- acceptance of that genuine disapproval doesn't legitimize the distorted presentation of what a phobia is.
Tuba: :::Genuinely laughing out loud::: Such strenuous gobbledegook in aid of whackadoodle nonsense. Silly shit, really.
P.S. Your posts exactly illustrate the ignorant animus homophobes so carefully and neurotically nurse. If the shoe fits, wear it, Sparky.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 12:38:16 GMT -5
wale:Again you go round and round because you haven't a solid foundational premise to fall back on AND much of what you 'base" your answers on is your own flawed thinking and opinion.1- No irony. your repeating the opposite of what I say neither establishes your statements as true nor equal 2- You confuse minimal functions of government as a license to do anything and everything. OUR Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to limit government. Just look at the amendments , like the 1st. They are RESTRICTIONS of power on the government, not a grant of power. Also MORAL ABSOLUTES do NOT change. 3- You are dismissed because your statements and reasoning is absurd.4-A phobia (from the Greek: f?ß??,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The meaning in the Greek language has NOT changed. There is NO such thing as homophobia, as a "phobia" is a fear of something. A "homo" phobia would be a fear of homosexuals, and what you mislabel as a phobia is actually a legitimate disapproval of a deviant behavior. Your non- acceptance of that genuine disapproval doesn't legitimize the distorted presentation of what a phobia is. Tuba::::Genuinely laughing out loud::: Such strenuous gobbledegook in aid of whackadoodle nonsense. Silly shit, really. P.S. Your posts exactly illustrate the ignorant animus homophobes so carefully and neurotically nurse. If the shoe fits, wear it, Sparky. Your expression of juvenile and imbecilic thinking in no way cancels out that A phobia (from the Greek: f?ß??,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The meaning in the Greek language has NOT changed. There is NO such thing as homophobia, as a "phobia" is a fear of something. A "homo" phobia would be a fear of homosexuals, and what you mislabel as a phobia is actually a legitimate disapproval of a deviant behavior. Your non- acceptance of that genuine disapproval doesn't legitimize the distorted presentation of what a phobia is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 12:47:48 GMT -5
What surprises me is conservatives support a federalist govt. and the federalist papers, I would think they would support the anti-federalists if they're so hot on hating the feds and large govt. Conservatives support understanding the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Bogus0Pomp on Feb 9, 2020 13:41:26 GMT -5
... A phobia (from the Greek: f?ß??,phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The meaning in the Greek language has NOT changed. There is NO such thing as homophobia, as a "phobia" is a fear of something. A "homo" phobia would be a fear of homosexuals... Just a reminder, we speak English here in the U.S., not literal Greek. ...
Definition of homophobia in English:
homophobia
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
|
|