T1B

Y2K wrote:Real men will eat Maggots.

Sincerely,
Bear Grylls

Rack Man vs. Wild

Moving Sale wrote:I tried to hand out an olive branch

Bullshit. You tried one of your patented "well, I'm right, but I'll throw you a minor bone" while describing my academic pedigree/expertise in a dismissive way.

That's not an olive branch - it's firing a few pop-gun rounds while retreating.

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day.

No, he coined the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ and called it NS. Spencer then coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Later Darwin, after some discourse with Wallace, wrote: “"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." Sometimes you fucking tard, SOMETIMES. Now is not one of those times.[/quote]

Yes, it is. You tried claiming that Darwin did not help coin the concept of "survival of the fittest."

Darwin and Spencer disagree with you.

You were wrong.

Moving Sale wrote:Did ya read what I wrote? “I beg to differ that NS and SotF are even the same concept.” ARE you fucking tard, ARE. Not were. There has been a lot of science since the 1800’s. Both social and biological. The terms have grown apart (not to the sheeple they haven’t hence your ‘take 100 people’ blast is probably right if by people you meant tards like yourself) in the minds of most people.

Wow. You're gonna pull a hammy with the way you're backpedaling and spinning.

Now you're going to the "verb tense" card?

We all know damned well what you meant.

You're turning a drive-by attempt to show me up into one of your most embarrassing displays of self-immolation.

Moving Sale wrote:Darwin had his ideas which he labeled NS.

And then decided to, in later edition of "Origin of Species," ALSO refer to as "survival of the fittest."

Moving Sale wrote:Spencer had his ideas which he labeled SotF.

However, he stated that his idea came from reading Darwin, who he said called the idea "natural selection."

Moving Sale wrote:Different men with different ideas. If they were the same there would be no need to talk about both.

Unfortunately for you, the fact that these "different men" decided -for all posterity to read- to consider the terms interchangeable and went so far as to give each other props (Darwin to Spencer for coining the specific phrase, Spencer to Darwin for the concept).

Moving Sale wrote:Be a tard with a lowly BS in biology and an education Master’s (I Laughed!)

Actually, numbnut, I hold TWO relevant master's degrees - one in biology, and one in biology education.

Oh, and co-authorship of two BIOLOGY papers.

Beat that.

Moving Sale wrote:I was talking about my Dad and my Sister and both of my Brothers-in-law who all teach at a University, College or do top notch research and all of their buddies who I constantly come in to contact with. Fuck you if you think I don’t have an “established reason” for knowing my family and their friends.

Honestly, I think you are full of shit.

You didn't even mention "knowing" biologists until you were getting your ass handed to you, and now, not only are you claiming that you know some, but BY GOD...they're IN YOUR FAMILY!!!

And, oh yeah, we're all supposed to believe that this whole Darwin, Spencer, "survival of the fittest," "natural selection" topic somehow may have come up over family dinner...say, between the passing of the mashed potatoes at Sunday dinner? or as you were all sipping cognac in the sitting room?

Midget, please...

You were wrong. Just admit it, and your embarassment in this debate will stop.

mvscal wrote:Just don't try to volunteer my time or money. I'll shoot you in the fucking face.

He should probably just be shot in the face anyway, on general principle.

Back to the topic at hand, I should rack 88 for his belated entry into the discussion. If the "people" have a moral obligation to provide some assistance to their less fortunate brethren, the government, like it or not, is the representative of the "people" in that regard.

And the Constitutional issue which has been brought up is, in no small part, a strawman, for two reasons. First, as BSmack pointed out, federal antipoverty programs have withstood constitutional challenge for quite some time now, even with the Supreme Court moving in an increasingly conservative direction over the past quarter century. You can quote Madison until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact.

Second, even if that weren't the case, let's go back to the original article JSC linked, shall we?

Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest point in many years -- roughly seven-in- ten (69%) now believe the government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves" -- up from 61% in 2002.

Note that the article references only "government." No distinction is made between federal and state governments. Since it's beyond reasonable dispute that state governments are free to initiate antipoverty programs of their own, what the article is talking about is not per se unconstitutional even under a strict construction of the Constitution.

Having said that, my concern with leaving this entirely in the hands of the states is that you will see an inevitable race to the bottom in that regard. Hell, I live in one of the more compassionate and progressive states in the country as far as assistance to the poor is concerned, and even here many people complain that the cost of social services is too high. I have no problem with allowing states to tailor their programs to whatever works best for them as long as they meet certain minimum guidelines.

Also, in my case, I'm less concerned with who helps the poor than that somebody helps the poor. If there were some entity which could do it in a better manner than the federal government, I'd be all for that. But right now, we're not doing nearly enough. And while I walk the walk when it comes to helping the less fortunate (a fact I wouldn't have mentioned except that mvscal tried to make it about me), I'm only one person with limited resources in that regard.

mvscal wrote:Just don't try to volunteer my time or money. I'll shoot you in the fucking face.

I take it you object to paying taxes to support antipoverty programs because you disagree with them. I'll tell you what. I'll support your right to a tax waiver for antipoverty programs just as soon as you support my right to a tax waiver for the Iraq War. Do we have a deal?

Of course, the reality is that we all have to pay taxes to support a bunch of programs we dislike, even hate. Don't like it? Try to elect someone whose views more closely reflect your own. Otherwise, stop whining about it.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Back to the topic at hand,

Wait.

Is that allowed?

Only after two consecutive hijacks.

We'd need a ruling on this one.

Mister Bushice wrote:We'd need a ruling on this one.

It's in the Constitution.

Well, that's not what I meant. See it's implied in the constitution.

No, wait. What I really meant is that I've got 200 years of history behind me! What have you got?

- Bsmacked.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Back to the topic at hand,

Wait.

Is that allowed?

Dunno, just thought I'd take a stab and see.

No one has thrown the red flag, so I'd say you could probably proceed.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:So what's your fucking point? That the last 200+ years of government has been unconstitutional?

Clearly, the fact that I’m not about to engage in one of your cute, li’l straw man arguments has been lost upon you.

Let’s review: You rationalize that because Madison owned slaves (…as did Jefferson, AND Washington, et al), that somehow this discredits the fourth president’s take on the Constitution, I simply asked you to prove him wrong. Instead, you post two pages of your patented, insipid pabulum in a futile attempt to spin the discussion a different direction.

Bottom line: You can’t. And that’s my point.

I can and I did. I cited the relevant passages in the US Constitution and the fact that Madison's own contemporaries (you know, the other Founding Fathers) voted against him. I also referenced that there are boatloads of legislation and legal precedent on my side of the argument and nothing more than a few cherry picked quotes on yours. But hey, if it makes you feel better, keep thinking that my brick house is made of straw as you pound your fists on the walls. Sooner or latter, the bloody stumps you used to call your fingers will tip you off to the truth..

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
Unsupported statements do not a proof make. When the nation was, according to you, "most libertarian," what corporations loomed over the U.S and ran the nation, "getting what they wanted?"

Your story is based on myths and unfounded suppositions.

Well, none to speak of. Then they just began appearing over time. That's my entire point and you were generous enough to make it for me, knucklehead. Cheers, Mike.

Competition also helps reign in some folks while prodding all on to make better products and necessarily lower prices.

Sometimes - yes. But that generally existed/exists in a closed system as a form of crisis management. For a multi-national corporation, alternative methods are employed to maintain profitability.

The rest of your post is crap. Of couse outside factors affect my clever model, that's a bit obvious. It wasn't meant as an absolute - but if your going to be a pedant, I'll tinker with it to keep you happy.

Our cast of characters and their worth:

P1=10$
P2=12$
P3 =11$
P4=14$
P5=15$
P6=12$
P7=11$
P8=8$
P9=8$
P10=10$

One day P5 had a run of bad luck in the market, went outside and a piano fell on his head and killed him.

P8 had a run of good luck and through merging aquisition blah blah blah corporatism.

Happy now?

And stick that social Darwinist crap, It isn't Darwin. Shitty half-thought-out sociopolitical theory can't be associated with evolutionary theory, but then you knew that, eh Dr. Science?

Dr_Phibes wrote:Of couse outside factors affect my clever model, that's a bit obvious.

And yet, you saw fit to completely exclude any mention of them. Undoubtably, a big motivation for your omission is that neither you, nor I, nor any economic wizard can build a model that will predict with any consistancy and accuracy how businesses and economies will definitely grow or shrink. There's just too many variables on the producer end (e.g., managerial decisions, innovations, acts of God) and consumer end (e.g., perception of product's value, demand in general) to possibly ever create an all-knowing predictor of how markets will work. In order for central planning to really work, humans would have to have access to every possible variable impacting the market, which is impossible.

Of course, that won't stop ideological fanatics of central planning from attempting such foolishness.

For example:

Dr_Phibes wrote:It wasn't meant as an absolute - but if your going to be a pedant, I'll tinker with it to keep you happy.

Our cast of characters and their worth:

P1=10$
P2=12$
P3 =11$
P4=14$
P5=15$
P6=12$
P7=11$
P8=8$
P9=8$
P10=10$

One day P5 had a run of bad luck in the market, went outside and a piano fell on his head and killed him.

P8 had a run of good luck and through merging aquisition blah blah blah corporatism.

Happy now?

Deliriously. In your nutty attempt to continue a discussion on why free markets are allegedly "bad," you proceeded to display your ignorance to the rest of the board and further establish your credentials as just another clueless, beret-and Che-shirt wearing, Borders coffeeshop-dwelling faux "expert" on economics.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Shitty half-thought-out sociopolitical theory

Like Marx, socialism, and all those half-assed "soak the rich," "workers should control the yadda-yadda," "proletariat shall rise," "revolution," horseshit? Very chic around the campuses, I'll grant you, but upper-middle class pampered brats who have mumsy and popsy paying their tuition and rent and who join in the socialist march after they park the Lexus and slurp a latte have always struck me as the only ones who buy into that crap. And most of them get it out of their systems before they actually have to get a job.

BSmack wrote:I can and I did.

Not so much, B. Care to link that one up for me?

BSmack wrote:I cited the relevant passages in the US Constitution and the fact that Madison's own contemporaries (you know, the other Founding Fathers) voted against him.

[deadpan]Is that right.[/deadpan]

If you're gonna hang your hat on Article I, Section 8, you might just wanna pull your head outta the noose first, B. One point Eight provides Congress direction for the creation and maintenance of the Great American War Machine and the means to fleece your purse in order to pay for it. Even the most archaic mention of entitlements for the disenfranchised came up sorely lacking.

Next, the Lollipop Guild decided to chime in with his bastardization of Article IV, Section 3. Were Section 3 to begin and end with The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations..., then you might just actually have a dog in this hunt. Unfortunately for you, however, the Section concludes with ...respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

BSmack wrote:I also referenced that there are boatloads of legislation and legal precedent on my side of the argument and nothing more than a few cherry picked quotes on yours.

Well, of course you did.

Losing an argument? Why, just change it! Clearly, the ol' "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" strategy at play here...

How very BSmackian of you, B.

---------------

Despite your straw man arguments, the premise of our diagreement was very simple, Brian: Find the Article or Amendment within The United States Constitution that authorizes Congress to provide entitlement to the disenfranchised at tax payer expense, thus proving the slave-holding (:meds:) Madison wrong

You can't. 'Cuz it ain't in there.

Now, I would hope that you understand the difference between between the Constitution and Constitutional Law. But in case you don't, Ed Meese said it best:

In October 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese spoke at Tulane University, where he made a distinction between the Constitution and Constitutional law. To distinguish them is necessary, he argued; to confuse them is to court anarchy. "The Constitution," he opined, "is - to put it simply but, one hopes, not too simplistically - the Constitution . . . Constitutional law, on the other hand, is that body of law which has resulted from the Supreme Court's adjudications. The point of Meese's distinction, as Gerald Frug of Harvard Law School has pointed out, "is that only the Constitution, not the decision of the Court, is the Supreme Law of the land."

BSmack wrote:But hey, if it makes you feel better, keep thinking that my brick house is made of straw as you pound your fists on the walls. Sooner or latter, the bloody stumps you used to call your fingers will tip you off to the truth..

So your straw man has cans, eh? Flexing a link to SCOTUS decisions does not a brick house make, Sport. Oh, and any blood you see just might be your own - the "end" result of multiple self-inflicted plungerings. Seriously, B, you know better...

Truman wrote: Despite your straw man arguments...


So your straw man...

This seems to be a recurring theme with you.

You are not the sole keeper of the sacred flame of AM talk radio. Most adults around here are hip to the
circular arguements of our own local right wing mouthpieces.

Hearing you spreading it around and watching it grow green, thinking your approach is fresh, makes you seem, well, a little behind the times.

Is this what passes for rapier sharp wit in 'Dullardsville, USA'?

Martyred wrote:
This seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Nope. Simply exposing a favored tactic by a respected InterWeb orator and adversary. I have little doubt that if presented the opportunity, BSmack could successfully lobby Canadian Parliament to change the Maple Leaf flag from red to blue….

Martyred wrote:You are not the sole keeper of the sacred flame of AM talk radio. Most adults around here are hip to the
circular arguements of our own local right wing mouthpieces.

Naw, I turned that position down in favor of knocking your socialist ass silly all over the InterWeb message boards. Try again, sMarty.

Martyred wrote:Hearing you spreading it around and watching it grow green, thinking your approach is fresh, makes you seem, well, a little behind the times.

Even in Canada?!

Speaking of behind the times... Don't the New York papers reach Sleddogisville? If they did, then I'm sure that you'd be quick to discover that any alleged conservative is clearly against anything green...

Martyred wrote:Is this what passes for rapier sharp wit in 'Dullardsville, USA'?

'Dunno, 'red, never been there. But nice rant, anyway.

BTW: Even my worst post would still have you collecting nickels and tipping your hat in the street while I grind out the music.

Because, at the end of the day:

You’re still Canadian…

Be sure to wake me when you country actually matters….

So, your game is an endless stream of non sequiturs...

I'll wait for you to claim 'BODE and post a picture of a mushroom cloud. Take it away, buddy.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:I can and I did.

Not so much, B. Care to link that one up for me?

Here's the relevant part yet again. I know that complex sentence structure isn't common in KC, but try to follow along.

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.

Now I know Madison was incapable of finding this passage, but a majority of his colleagues in the House and Senate were able to do so without much trouble. In addition, so was the President of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. My guess, Madison had a little buyers remorse when he saw that Hamilton and friends were being more aggressive with their central authority than he ever imagined when the Constitution was drafted.

If you're gonna hang your hat on Article I, Section 8, you might just wanna pull your head outta the noose first, B. One point Eight provides Congress direction for the creation and maintenance of the Great American War Machine and the means to fleece your purse in order to pay for it. Even the most archaic mention of entitlements for the disenfranchised came up sorely lacking.

And there's this very vague passage regarding the "general welfare of the United States" which has been used as the justification for our current welfare safety net. Whether YOU like it or not.

BSmack wrote:

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:I can and I did.

Not so much, B. Care to link that one up for me?

Here's the relevant part yet again. I know that complex sentence structure isn't common in KC, but try to follow along.

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.

Now I know Madison was incapable of finding this passage, but a majority of his colleagues in the House and Senate were able to do so without much trouble. In addition, so was the President of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. My guess, Madison had a little buyers remorse when he saw that Hamilton and friends were being more aggressive with their central authority than he ever imagined when the Constitution was drafted.

If you're gonna hang your hat on Article I, Section 8, you might just wanna pull your head outta the noose first, B. One point Eight provides Congress direction for the creation and maintenance of the Great American War Machine and the means to fleece your purse in order to pay for it. Even the most archaic mention of entitlements for the disenfranchised came up sorely lacking.

And there's this very vague passage regarding the "general welfare of the United States" which has been used as the justification for our current welfare safety net. Whether YOU like it or not.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

...And you know it. Next...

Truman wrote:Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

...And you know it. Next...

You must be smoking the same fucking dope your neighbor Bill Mass has been burning.

Seriously, are you so brain dead as to not understand that outcomes like the reduction of poverty or the increased availability of medical care DO contribute to the "health, happiness, prosperity and well-being" of our country?

You can argue with the methodology welfare/entitlement programs use. You can quarrel with their results or lack thereof. But to argue that there is no Constitutional validity for welfare and entitlement programs is straight out retarded.

BSmack wrote:
Seriously, are you so brain dead as to not understand that outcomes like the reduction of poverty or the increased availability of medical care DO contribute to the "health, happiness, prosperity and well-being" of our country?

Now there you go again.

Seriously, are YOU so brain dead as to not understand that I never posted a single keystroke suggesting otherwise? I may even actually agree with your last statement ... To a point. But that's topic for another discussion.

BSmack wrote:You can argue with the methodology welfare/entitlement programs use. You can quarrel with their results or lack thereof. But to argue that there is no Constitutional validity for welfare and entitlement programs is straight out retarded.

It is also straight out retarded to try to prove a negative.

There is not a single word in the Constitution - specific or otherwise implied - that authorizes Congress to fund entitlement programs for the disenfranchised. Not an Article. Not a Section. Not an Amendment.

Let me rerpeat that:

Not one single word.

We are not debating Constitutional Law here. Like it or not, B, James Madison was right. For you to continue to argue otherwise is specious.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:Seriously, are you so brain dead as to not understand that outcomes like the reduction of poverty or the increased availability of medical care DO contribute to the "health, happiness, prosperity and well-being" of our country?

Now there you go again.

Seriously, are YOU so brain dead as to not understand that I never posted a single keystroke suggesting otherwise? I may even actually agree with your last statement ... To a point. But that's topic for another discussion.

Well, we may be getting somewhere. That is, if you understand that if a program has a stated purpose of advancing the general welfare of this country it can be assumed to have passed Constitutional muster as per Article 1, Sec 8.

Which means Madison was wrong.

Truman wrote:There is not a single word in the Constitution - specific or otherwise implied - that authorizes Congress to fund entitlement programs for the disenfranchised. Not an Article. Not a Section. Not an Amendment.

It would seem to me that at least as to one specific program -- food stamps -- there is authorization, at least in the modern day. That would be the Commerce Clause in Article I, § 8.

Maybe in Madison's day, when our society was much more agrarian, that wasn't the case. But it seems to me that one would have a pretty difficult time contending that the purchase and sale of food today is not a matter of interstate commerce.

Of course, in fairness I should point out that the food stamp program is not a "welfare" program per se, in that depending on income and family size, one could be eligible for food stamps even if employed.

You can argue with the methodology welfare/entitlement programs use. You can quarrel with their results or lack thereof. But to argue that there is no Constitutional validity for welfare and entitlement programs is straight out retarded.

The Retards are the ones who seem to interpret "Constitutional Validity" and yet ignore any personal or civic accountibility when it gets down to unimportant shit like promoting to the "General" Welfare of our society. Blame Bush, Reagan, Big Business Meanies, oil or whatthefuckever the latest excuse is, but it still doesn't make it anything other than complete dogshit.

That's the crazy shit about the actual "results"

it seems to get in the way of the latest crew of Retards offering more free unaccountable Government shit.

Quite the deal for the lies, bullshit promises, paid advertisements and the Party "Swag" come election day.

Mikey wrote:

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

Don't you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

you know what else isn't in the Constitution?

Gay marriage rights!!!

:lol:

Dorks.

I mean seriously.

What a bunch of dorks.

I realize this train wreck is destined for the bottom of Page 6, but I could seriously give a rat’s ass.

B and Terry: You’re wrong. And you’ve been wrong all along.

We’ve argued it; but it has yet to be posted. One point Eight reads as follows:

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;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What a pair of Rocket Surgeons.

A complete Constitutional Article dedicated to Congress, granting them the Power to:

a) raise taxes,
b) borrow money,
c) haggle with Native Americans over casino revenues,
d) hang pirates,
e) offer illegal aliens amnesty,
f) print cayshe,
g) declare war, and
h) fund, supply, and build infrastructure for the military .

Yet you “Constitutional Geniuses” lay your collective asshats on a single word:

Welfare.

Did it ever occur to either one of you Mensas that the definition of “Welfare” just might have changed a bit over the course of the last 200 years?

Of course not.

Such a suggestion defies everything liberal, and wrecks your agenda.

You want progress, B? Perfect. Simply acknowledge that I.8 has zero to do with the country’s entitlement programs currently in place, and are, in effect, the product of legal manifestations outside the body the Constitution, and we'll move on....

Oh, I can almost hear you sputter, B. But in regard to credibility, the opinion of a Founding Father and former President holds a helluva lot for credence in THIS camp than that of a Nameless, InterWeb hack.

Constitutional law does not the Constitution make.

Get stuffed, B: Madison was right.

titlover wrote:

Mikey wrote:

titlover wrote:you know what else isn't in the Constitution? ABORTION rights!!!!!

Don't you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

you know what else isn't in the Constitution?

Gay marriage rights!!!

:lol:

Marriage isn't addressed at all, idiot.

No, Truman, here's where you're wrong. Among other things, Article I, §8 gives Congress the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Now, in Truman's right-wing world, that apparently translates into:

To regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes

Because Truman summarized that passage as follows:

A complete Constitutional Article dedicated to Congress, granting them the Power to . . .
c) haggle with Native Americans over casino revenues,

Of course, Native American casinos didn't even exist back in 1789, so any assertion that limits the Commerce Clause to your translation is patently absurd.

You'll note that I referred to one specific program: food stamps. Do you assert that the purchase and sale of food is not a matter of interstate commerce? Note that I'm talking about today, not 1789.

Dern, Ter, I keep forgetting just how humorless you leftist, commie, just-say-no-to-tort-reform, liberal-types are in any world.

But thanks for history lesson. I woulda never known that Indian casinos didn't exist back in 1789 were it not for your commentary. Guess I shoulda posted the [hyperbole][/hyperbole] tags just so's you could keep up.

BTW: Surprised that you failed to "note" that I didn't cut the pirates any slack either....

Terry in Crapchester wrote:You'll note that I referred to one specific program: food stamps. Do you assert that the purchase and sale of food is not a matter of interstate commerce? Note that I'm talking about today, not 1789.

Whew! Glad you cleared that on up, Sparky! Pity your rant doesn't apply to One point Eight...

And despite your "spin", I'll "assert" that the provision for food stamps - or any other welfare program for that matter - is not specifically authorized anywhere within the Constitution. SCOTUS suggests otherwise. But it ain't in the Body Document.

Oh, and please "note" that I'm talking about today... Not 1789.

Are you kidding me? Cat makes Moving Sale seem almost cognizant...

Truman wrote:Dorks.

I mean seriously.

What a bunch of dorks.

I realize this train wreck is destined for the bottom of Page 6, but I could seriously give a rat’s ass.

B and Terry: You’re wrong. And you’ve been wrong all along.

We’ve argued it; but it has yet to be posted. One point Eight reads as follows:

Erection...Magazines

And thus, Playboy was born. It was right there in the constitution all along.

Truman wrote:Whew! Glad you cleared that on up, Sparky! Pity your rant doesn't apply to One point Eight...

Art. I, § 8 clearly includes the Commerce Clause. What part of that don't you get?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Truman wrote:Whew! Glad you cleared that on up, Sparky! Pity your rant doesn't apply to One point Eight...

Art. I, § 8 clearly includes the Commerce Clause. What part of that don't you get?

My guess would be all of it. Either that or he's being deliberately obstinate in an attempt to prove a point known only to himself.

Jsc810 wrote:Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.


Of those that frequent this forum, that figure may be lower. Just a guess.

I agree with those 7 out of 10. As long as the government is collecting tax money, then the government can spare a little of that money to assisting the very folks who pay into it. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a good thing. Social Security (when it's not being applied to everyone under the sun who gets sniffles in spring) is a good thing.

If the government can wage war, why not assist those who need help?

My cut off point is bending over backwards to assist foreigners while any American is not getting comparative assistance.

I notice how you didn't quote this: "Go through life telling people how Darwin is Spencer and Spencer is Darwin."
Any tard who thinks they are the same is an iodiot. That would be you.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Honestly, I think you are full of shit.

You didn't even mention "knowing" biologists until you were getting your ass handed to you, and now, not only are you claiming that you know some, but BY GOD...they're IN YOUR FAMILY!!!

Fuck off asshole.

And, oh yeah, we're all supposed to believe that this whole Darwin, Spencer, "survival of the fittest," "natural selection" topic somehow may have come up over family dinner...say, between the passing of the mashed potatoes at Sunday dinner? or as you were all sipping cognac in the sitting room?

Just because we don't talk about how to improve our doublewide like you do.....

No go fuck yourself you pompus fuck.

Moving Sale wrote:Any tard who this they are the same is an iodiot.

Wow.

Moving Sale wrote:I notice how you didn't quote this: "Go through life telling people how Darwin is Spencer and Spencer is Darwin."
Any tard who thinks they are the same is an iodiot. That would be you.

Different people. Same idea. Even THEY said so. Which, I guess, makes both of those erudite individuals "iodiots" [sic] in your view.

Moving Sale wrote:Fuck off asshole.

Nice typing. You touch your mother with those fingers, dirty boy?

And, oh yeah, we're all supposed to believe that this whole Darwin, Spencer, "survival of the fittest," "natural selection" topic somehow may have come up over family dinner...say, between the passing of the mashed potatoes at Sunday dinner? or as you were all sipping cognac in the sitting room?

Just because we don't talk about how to improve our doublewide like you do.....

Actually, I live in a two story Victorian (three if you count the full attic) with a detached two-car garage. Very weak attempt to smack my living accomodations, especially considering that anyone who pays attention knows damned well that I live smack dab in the middle of a college town.

Moving Sale wrote:No go fuck yourself you pompus fuck.

I do believe you're stuttering.

Mike el Rodento dismissed the "later writers" input about the terminology. But that is where you will find justification for what Moving Sale started talking about. While he didn't formulate his initial notions very well on the mark, he wasn't totally off the map in that there might be something of a dust up about using the two terms interchangeably. That is, if one takes any stock in what later writers have to say about evolution.





velocet

velocet wrote:Mike el Rodento dismissed the "later writers" input about the terminology. But that is where you will find justification for what Moving Sale started talking about. While he didn't formulate his initial notions very well on the mark, he wasn't totally off the map in that there might be something of a dust up about using the two terms interchangeably. That is, if one takes any stock in what later writers have to say about evolution.

Contrary to the Midget's assertions, he was doing nothing more than a drive-by attempt at knocking me and screwed up. I specifically stated that Darwin "helped coin the concept" of survival of the fittest. I am right and gave quotes from the two individuals most germane to the argument - Darwin and Spencer.

Since Moving sale has a seeming congenital inability to admit he's wrong, he attempted to argue from points that had absolutely nothing to do with his original premise, which was incorrect. My point, as originally stated, is correct, regardless of how subsequent researchers decided to split hairs over the meaning of the terms later on. Darwin, indisputably, helped (i.e., did not do it on his own) to coin the concept (which both he and Spencer considered synonomous with natural selection) of "survival of the fittest."

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

velocet wrote:Mike el Rodento dismissed the "later writers" input about the terminology. But that is where you will find justification for what Moving Sale started talking about. While he didn't formulate his initial notions very well on the mark, he wasn't totally off the map in that there might be something of a dust up about using the two terms interchangeably. That is, if one takes any stock in what later writers have to say about evolution.

Contrary to the Midget's assertions, he was doing nothing more than a drive-by attempt at knocking me and screwed up. I specifically stated that Darwin "helped coin the concept" of survival of the fittest. I am right and gave quotes from the two individuals most germane to the argument - Darwin and Spencer.

The quote and issue currently at hand is: "No, he coined the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ and called it NS. Spencer then coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Later Darwin, after some discourse with Wallace, wrote: “"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.""

That doesn't sound like Darwin coining anything. It sounds like Darwin being conciliatory towards someone else who was thinking along parallel lines and then switched tracks. Spencer thought outside a box Darwin had placed himself (Darwin) in. Darwin sounds like he's giving public acceptance of Spencer's own boxing. But that's not helping coin. It's just embracing a new track that jumped off from your own. Unless you want to make the argument that acceptance gives one half a credit for coining.

Should Darwin also be credited with helping to coin Social Darwinism?

Should Thomas Malthus be credited with helping to coin all three terms?

To me, it's kind of like Trent Reznor wrote 'Hurt' about drug addiction and self-pity, Johnny Cash sang 'Hurt' about mortality and finding the courage to reflect upon the inevitable. Trent Reznor did not help 'coin' Johnny Cash' interpretation of 'Hurt'; but Trent accepted and embraced it, to the point where he will no longer perform 'Hurt' because, as he says, it's not his song anymore. Trent began, Cash jumped off. Darwin began, Spencer and Social Darwinists jumped off. Trent and Darwin both embraced Cash and Spencer's jump offs. I don't know how Darwin felt about Social Darwinists.

Mike, you have a sore spot about anyone appearing to disagree with you, don't you? It's one thing to correct someone's assumption about your education level. It's another thing entirely to say 'beat that!'

Is there some elitism going down with you? or are you a little bit insecure when it comes to pricking your own beliefs?

Since Moving sale has a seeming congenital inability to admit he's wrong,

A trait you probably share.

he attempted to argue from points that had absolutely nothing to do with his original premise, which was incorrect.

What does it say about you, to join him if you thought that was what he was doing?

My point, as originally stated, is correct, regardless of how subsequent researchers decided to split hairs over the meaning of the terms later on. Darwin, indisputably, helped (i.e., did not do it on his own) to coin the concept (which both he and Spencer considered synonomous with natural selection) of "survival of the fittest."

See: "seeming congenital inability to admit he's wrong"

^^^ Don't feed it fellas.

Just sayin'. Let it die.

Risa wrote:That doesn't sound like Darwin coining anything. It sounds like Darwin being conciliatory towards someone else who was thinking along parallel lines and then switched tracks. Spencer thought outside a box Darwin had placed himself (Darwin) in. Darwin sounds like he's giving public acceptance of Spencer's own boxing. But that's not helping coin. It's just embracing a new track that jumped off from your own. Unless you want to make the argument that acceptance gives one half a credit for coining.

You haven't got a frigging clue about what you're talking.

Color me and the entire board surprised.

Darwin is the man credited with coming up with the best explanation of how natural selection works. That's why he is famous. That's what we cover in the biology class I have taught...some 18 times, if you include AP biology (we're semestered, so I teach 3-4 sections of underclassman bio per year).

Spencer read Darwin's account of the struggle of life and how species evolve, which Darwin called "natural selection" (which he did after -in boringly painstaking detail- describing artificial selection in pigeons and dogs in "Origin of Species"...which, btw, I took the time to read). Spencer, in a book that came out AFTER "Origin," decsribes Darwin's concept and renames it "survival of the fittest." Darwin digs that, and in a later edition (5th, I believe), himself starts using the term himself, giving Spencer "props."

I realize that you are five of the ten stupidest individuals to have ever set digits to internet keyboard, but even a dullard like you should be able to follow that one.

Risa wrote:Should Darwin also be credited with helping to coin Social Darwinism?

No. Biologists, in general find "social darwinism" a bastardization of the man's ideas.

Risa wrote:Should Thomas Malthus be credited with helping to coin all three terms?

Uh, no, why the hell should he? All Malthus contributed to Darwin's idea was that (in humans) there is in each generation the potential to produce more offspring than can possibly survive (due to disease, lack of resources, war). Darwin most definitely found Malthus's writings on HUMAN history invaluable, as it explained the struggle for existence, but Malthus said nothing about how variety of traits in other species affect THEIR struggle for survival, much less anything about the evolution of new species.

In short, you microcephalic annoyance, your attempt to seem educated by tossing in Malthus's name doesn't work.

Risa wrote:To me, it's kind of like Trent Reznor wrote 'Hurt' about drug addiction and self-pity, Johnny Cash sang 'Hurt' about mortality and finding the courage to reflect upon the inevitable. Trent Reznor did not help 'coin' Johnny Cash' interpretation of 'Hurt'; but Trent accepted and embraced it, to the point where he will no longer perform 'Hurt' because, as he says, it's not his song anymore. Trent began, Cash jumped off. Darwin began, Spencer and Social Darwinists jumped off. Trent and Darwin both embraced Cash and Spencer's jump offs. I don't know how Darwin felt about Social Darwinists.

My God, but you're an incoherent mess. Does every post seem an excuse for you to just ramble on about any off-topic that your half-dozen barely-functioning neurons decide to snap out?

Here, let me try:

Risa's posts remind me of something...a little off topic, but here it goes: There was a horrible stink in our dining room. Couldn't figure out what it was. I even used all kinds off pet odor powders and foams on the rug in that room to get rid of the smell. It came back. Tossed the plants. The smell was still there. This evening, after discussing the odor, my wife went hunting for the source as I was upstairs. I heard her shriek. Turns out there was a dead mouse on the heat register. So, I steeled myself, and armed with Lysol spray and paper towels, I took apart the heat register and found the rotting carcass.

And you know, I'll bet that if I threw that dead mouse on a keyboard, the results would be more coherent and full of intelligence than anything spewed by Risa...

How was THAT, you feculent nutjob?

Risa wrote:Mike, you have a sore spot about anyone appearing to disagree with you, don't you?

No, just stupid people. Like you for instance. Your posts are devoid of style, wit, intelligence, or anything remotely redeeming. Hell, the only reason I'm bothering to respond to you now is that I've got one hell of a lot of free time.

Risa wrote:Is there some elitism going down with you?

Gee, if it's elitist to nail stupid people for being stupid, then I revel in it. On the other hand, how 'elitist" can it be to be smarter than YOU, considering that the "elite group" consists of a mere 6.2 billion souls?

Risa wrote:

Since Moving sale has a seeming congenital inability to admit he's wrong,

A trait you probably share.

Let's see...a sawed-off midget shyster who has gone on record buying into 9/11 conspiracy theories decides to debate me - a former practicing biologist who [gasp] TEACHES DARWIN on that particular person, I call him out on his argument, and I still think he's wrong, and that strikes you as a "congenital ability to admit [I'm] wrong?"

Let me explain something to you - Moving Sale is wrong on this, and he is wrong on the 9/11 conspiracy thing, despite the dozens of links and posts that rebutted his weirdass claims. he has a DEMONSTRATED track record of never saying, "I was wrong," even when the evidence was completely against him.

Kind of like how you've never come completely correct on your Sharptonesque attack on the Duke players.

What does it say about you, to join him if you thought that was what he was doing?

Read slowly, numbnut: I....am....on....vacation...for....two...and...a...half....months. I....only....post....on.....this....board....and....even....then....mostly....during....my....summer...break.

My point, as originally stated, is correct, regardless of how subsequent researchers decided to split hairs over the meaning of the terms later on. Darwin, indisputably, helped (i.e., did not do it on his own) to coin the concept (which both he and Spencer considered synonomous with natural selection) of "survival of the fittest."

Risa wrote:See: "seeming congenital inability to admit he's wrong"

On the contrary. Instead see: "Risa is a clueless individual who Mike has refused to call a "tard" out of respect for the TARDS that lap her on the IQ scale"