Then again, we didn't have a passle of power hungry yahos whose interest centered more on their own power than on the country they served, either. As such, nobody challanged such executive power in time of war. Or, at least, Congress saw the brits the larger danger in comparison to giving the president control of the military.

Did we have a whole host of people, including the office of legal council (e.g. John Yoo's equivalent), providing memos and legal briefings on the unitary executive theory?

Yes, and it wasn't until this century that the "provide for the general defense" was construed as the ability for the president to declare war without congress doing so first.

Well, we did have an undeclared, congressionally mandated (just like the Iraq war), naval war with France from 1798 to 1800...

Have a nice 'Duh".

In crayon. And you can't even manage to stay within the lines.

I find it endlessly entertaining to watch you use debate tactics which didn't work back on the third grade playground. Shifting the argument to the amount of money spent is a transparent and quite lame attempt to hide the fact that you've got nothing - nothing at all - in response.

To the contrary; The argument presents shows I ahve soemthing you almost invariably lack: Perspective. For all your complaints about the spending on the war, (the speck in my eye, perhaps) something which is constitutionally mandated, you ingore the log in your own Socialist spending... which is by no means constitutionally mandated.

Part of the serious problem in the political philosophy of the modern right is that you see only "provide for the common defense" but seem to be physically unable to read "provide for the general welfare".

Whereas your own reading and comprehension problem with this centers around the idea that you can't seem to bring yourself to notice that 'provide for the general welfare' (or, if you like, promote the general welfare) is not an equal of 'provide the general welfare'... that these are vastly and foundationally different things.

As an example; providing FOR the general welfare would most certainly include not taxing and regulating corprations which provide jobs, out of existance, so that people might keep their jobs. Certainy, in the interests of the general welfare.

Learn what government is about, how it functions and the theory of law.

Oh, I've done just that, in more detail than you could possibly understand. I've even drawn several conclusions... ones I'm sure you'll get all upset about because they don't fit in with your leftist mindless set.

Yes, and it wasn't until this century that the "provide for the general defense" was construed as the ability for the president to declare war without congress doing so first. And it also wasn't until this century that the first amendment was construed to mean what it current means (see Sedition act, etc).

Dave, you're just picking and choosing. If you want to be a literalist, that's fine. But if the constitution is so cut and dried then we can simply use a machine to interpret it rather than having to actually, you know, figure out what it means using Judges n' stuff.

You can use this bizarro tactic to claim that "welfare" doesn't mean actually - you know - taking care of people - in whatever form Congress wants and that we're simply making that stuff up. But imho, that's nit picking of an almost unbelievably anal variety and simply done because you don't happen to like a particular kind of "welfare" and want to find some reason not to support it.

Cowboy up, dude.

James, why do you think that people coined the term 'poison pill'? It doesn't refer to justifiable policies, but to deliberately destructive policies set up to be triggered in the case of the loss of power by an elite few within the corporation, set up to cause massive unnecessary lossed to others, in order for thoese eliter few to hold onto power and privilege.

Your "I know you are but what am I" style of argumentation is an embarrassment best relegated to 8 year olds.

doesn't hold a candle to the amount of money being spent on direct payments to individuals....

Since the former is a constitutionally mandated function of government and the latter isn't

And you're certainly no constitutional scholar. Surely even someone of your reading and comprehension skills could manage to actually read the first sentence of the constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Emphasis, mine.

And I know it may be hard for you to actually do so, seeing as how it's further down the document and you would have to actually read, but here's the powers vested in the congress in article I

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Part of the serious problem in the political philosophy of the modern right is that you see only "provide for the common defense" but seem to be physically unable to read "provide for the general welfare". I guess seeing the word "welfare" in the constitution causes severe cognitive dissonance in y'all and therefore you just act like it wasn't there at all.

Dude, go back and take your seventh grade civics class. Learn what government is about, how it functions and the theory of law. Being a proper citizen requires you actually understand these things and not simply make shit up on the fly, rely on what you thought you heard Ron Paul say or parrot back what you read in some John Birch society's pamphlet.

SS is simply deficit spending. It isn't any different from any other kind of deficit spending. Corporations, individuals and, yes, even governments are allowed to borrow from the future and spend in the present. It's a fundamental aspect of modern economics and finance.

To claim that a particular kind of deficit spending - i.e. SS - is a "ponzi scheme" is either deliberately lying - as seems to be the case in many right wing politicians - or is simply an attempt to deliberately misunderstand and propagate that misunderstanding because you don't happen to like the particular program. I'm not sure which one James is subject to, but I would hope that he could explain his reasoning in something better than a feeble attempt like yours, Bithead, which consists of nothing more than arguing from ignorance and reliance on nursery school taunting.

I'd ask you to actually back up that claim with some reference to some law that outlaws SS, but we both know you won't produce any such thing.

You seem to be suffering from some category slippage.

To say nothing of cracker slippage.

And maybe y'all on the right can explain to me why the federal deficit isn't a just a "ponzi scheme". I mean, since we're financing the most excellent war ever to the toon of several trillions of dollars - all of which future generations will have to pay - to be consistent (don't worry, I'm holding my laughter) you'd have to call that a "ponzi scheme", too.

LOL.... You know, all that money being spent on the war, doesn't hold a candle to the amount of money being spent on direct payments to individuals.... you know... social programs.

Since the former is a constitutionally mandated function of government and the latter isn't, seems to me your priorities are also slipping.

<crickets chirping>

Guess that's illegal, too, right Bithead?

Making the argument that SS would be illegal if a corporation did it is simply displaying a classic category error that many on the right seem to make consistently.

So, what's your point, Bithead?

Simply that there's a reason such things are illegal, Hal... and that reason does not involve arranging a governmental monopoly on it.

Duh. It's called a rhetorical device. Obviously, private organizations printing their own money would be illegal, but somehow, mysteriously (to the right, anyway), the Government can print money! Likewise, the government can declare war while private corporations cannot.

I mean, really. Making the argument that SS would be illegal if a corporation did it is simply displaying a classic category error that many on the right seem to make consistently.

So, what's your point, Bithead?