OT - Politics

Page 3 of 15  
J. Clarke wrote:

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer Power!!!!
And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Already has - quite a while ago :-(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a misnomer. You don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And you don't have to be retired, either. I joined because AARP members can get hotel discounts, and the first time I used the discount saved me more money than a three year membership.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's almost funny. My mother enrolled me when I turned 50. I didn't bother renewing until years later, but now, my wife renews every year. You do NOT get off the mailing list if you don't rejoin, it just changes the nature of the mailings--no more magazines and newsletters, just a short ton of junk mail telling you what you're missing.
As far as aging goes, I'm doing pretty well for one of the kids who had the local and state cops betting he wouldn't live to be 21. Well past three times that now, and creaking around the edges, but still going, if not very quickly any more. Ah, for the good old days when a cop had to track you for a quarter mile to ticket you, or catch you on early radar (tripod mounted) and then catch you. Back then, the average car nut kid could build something that outran what the cops could buy. I noticed today that the wild and wooly town of Bedford, all 6,600 population, now has Dodge Charger cop cars that can outrun most of what any of us buy. Thing is, there's no place in town limits they can safely get over 45-50 MPH even with lights and siren. But it makes the town cops feel ballsy, I guess.
I'm not sure whether AARP or AAA offers the more valuable discounts, but I wish I could combine them. Or combine the memberships and save a buck. Hell, when I passed 62, I got to pay a higher fee and got a lifetime membership in the Marine Corps League, which brought a solid brass, engraved, membership card I have to leave home when flying. It sets off the idiotic machines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

I started getting AARP's mailings when I hit about 49. Last March when I turned 53 and was still getting their stuff in the mail, I sent a letter back to them telling them I wasn't old enough to be getting old, to take my name off of their mailing list, and hit me up when I get into my mid 80's just to see if I would like to join then. Not a word from them since!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
user wrote:

A couple of years ago I started getting asked at restaurants and theaters and so on if I wanted a senior citizen discount. I resisted for a while then finally decided "Oh, to Hell with it, if they want to short-change themselves it's their business".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

And you supported an organization that believes in force and extortion (directed at the younger generation) to support actions by the Federal government that are illegal and destructive to our freedom.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves, b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren, and c) The government has no legal right to do.
I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the 2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP attacks them.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess what, they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for your opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is "illegal".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference between the two.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right.
I find it interesting that you have responded to this post but not to any in which you are asked to provide some credible evidence to support yout claim that governement actions benefitting the economy are unlawful. And I also find it interesting that you don't address the point that many government actions are going to affect the economy in some fashion even if they are not intended to, and so by your reasoning would be unlawful.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the intent of the Framers. There is *no mention* of Federal intervention into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they want it to. The former is long established in legal history in our nation.

I have already responded, but will do so again. The doctrine of enumerated powers upon which the US Constitution rests, requires that the Federal government must have *explicit* (Constitutional) permission to do something. Failing such permission, the activity in question belongs to the states and/or the individual. In short, the Federal government does not have explicit permission to intervene in the economy. The "general welfare" clause does not open that door because reading it as you apparently do would undermine the *very clear* intent of the Framers that the law of the land be explicitly enumerated. If you don't understand this line of argument, go read a book on the writing of the Constitution. If you do understand it, and just don't like it - and thus want the Feds to do what suits you - you are in the company of a great many people in this nation who don't care about the law, just as long as they get what they want ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Please re read the paragraph to which you responded. Look very carefully for the word "not" and consider its significance.

Just as there seems to be on mention of a collective rights interpretation.

Which they do. The power to enact a budget, to raise an army, to tax, to spend, etc. All of these affect the economy. Do you deny that they have these powers? Do you deny that their exercise affects the economy?

It doesn't need one. It has many powers, the exercise of which affect the economy regardless of the intent.

So what clause forbids the use of the many enumerated powers of the Federal government in such a manner as to benefit the economy?

If you don't understand that that particular argument was abandoned several posts back then go read a book on reading comprehension.

And again you are dodging the question.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

... snip

What part of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" does not imply a collective right? If your interpretation of over-reaching federal powers can be derived from a general purpose statement in the preamble, I would certainly think you would be even more emphatic about rights that are specifically enumerated and affirmed.
.. snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong.
There is the ICC.
It is not the only example, just the most obvious.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is part of the Constitution, which is distinct from, and in law here in the US superior to, our legal code.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NoOne N Particular wrote:

Some states have part-time legislatures. The rest of the year the lawmakers have to get out and make a living in the real world. Seems to work OK.
How about requiring, every legislative session, every lawmaker to take a rigorous oral examination on the U.S. Constitution, with special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and allow them to vote only if they pass with flying colors?

Sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

So they memorize the answers to an exam. So what? Knowing the Constitution doesn't mean that one will obey it.
Hold them personally accountable if the Supreme Court knocks down on Constitutional grounds any piece of legislation that they enacted.

Nope. In the Starship Troopers system anybody could get the vote--all he had to do was complete a term of government service. There was no means test on government service--they _had_ to take you if you applied, but they were under no obligation to make it easy or pleasant for you and if you quit, which you could do at any time, you never got another chance.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Which is a more rigorous and soul-searching requirement than just having a middle-class income.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.