• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Compassionate Conservatives, all of them

Deacfreak07 said:
Now THIS is how it's done jhmd. You might as well be just drawing on your screen with crayons.
Click to expand...

[things people post when they realize it is too late to walk back a hastily thrown together, poorly-reasoned, knee jerk objection on Constitutional grounds]
 
jhmd2000 said:
[things people post when they realize it is too late to walk back a hastily thrown together, poorly-reasoned, knee jerk objection on Constitutional grounds]
Click to expand...

Oh yea, I remember when I posted on this thread about objecting to this on Constitutional grounds. I just can't seem to find the post. Have you seen it? I guess it could be with your pride somewhere under the weight of the attention tjcmd is receiving. Maybe we can find it there.
 
jhmd2000 said:
This should be good...on what grounds? LOL at 4th Amendment, which as anyone who has ever been pulled over knows is waivable at the drop of a hat. If you consciously elect to apply for something to be given to you for free, you consent to its conditions. You guys are running scared and have lost what once passed for your bearings. The government is not permitted to put conditions on aid you seek from it? Since when? THIS government can tap your phone, email, bank accounts, search history, etc., etc., etc. on a whole lot less than conscious consent. THIS government can order you to make health care choices, even when you don't want them for yourself, and make you pay for them. NOW you start caring about big government? NOW? The train left a while ago. You broke it. You bought it, clowns.
Click to expand...

That is distinctly not the law when it comes to land use. Government can't abridge a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think my favorite part of this is that if a single parent is smoking weed in Tennessee they get sent to mandatory drug rehab and don't get welfare. So what happens to their kids? Oh that's a bigger burden on the state? WOW great work - now the parent is going to drug rehab for a substance that isn't physiologically addicting while their kids go into custody of the state. Definitely better than welfare!
Click to expand...

the word you are looking for is bootstraps
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
That is distinctly not the law when it comes to land use. Government can't abridge a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit.
Click to expand...

Sure it can. The government can now order you to make health care choices. That's the significance of the individual mandate. Welcome to 2012.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What constitutional right is abridged with the ACA?
Click to expand...

Why, the made-up right to privacy, of course. The very objection that served as the "Keep your laws off my body" protests for years and years that suddenly vanished back into nonexistence when you wanted to put your laws on someone else's body. You guys don't remember your beloved made-up right to privacy?
 
Mrs. Griswold is turning over in her Connecticut grave at that load of shit.
 
Right. Well I'm done here.

I'm serious though, what happens when a single mom tests positive for weed or refuses the test knowing she will fail and then her kid gets taken away? We just bear the cost of that as a society?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Right. Well I'm done here.

I'm serious though, what happens when a single mom tests positive for weed or refuses the test knowing she will fail and then her kid gets taken away? We just bear the cost of that as a society?
Click to expand...

Well, at least she didn't do something REALLY heinous, like allowing the kids to play in a playground unsupervised.
 
Life has consequences. These people need us to teach them that. They need skin in the game, and they need to know that if they are going to live off my hard work, then they have to follow the rules.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
so, you don't have a real answer
Click to expand...

If you think that the government should have the ability to order you to buy a service with respect to your health against your will, that's fine, but please stop pretending to believe in a right to privacy. You certainly lack any standing to contest restrictions put on other public benefits, such as the reasonable restrictions to choose to remain eligible for public assistance. It's a matter of consistency.
 
so you don't have an answer WRT to constitutionality. thanks for playing
 
ImTheCaptain said:
so you don't have an answer WRT to constitutionality. thanks for playing
Click to expand...

I have come to appreciate your guys long-held view that the Constitution is a living, breathing thing that you can make stuff up if you don't like the way it was written. If you can make up a right to privacy (and you did for 50 years), then I guess the rest of us can make up how it is applied, right? Feel free to argue for strict construction against this reckless practice.

But let's start this little game where it began: what is the basis for objecting to welfare drug screening on Constitutional grounds (that three different posters confidently rushed towards concluding, sans citation)?
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Do you even law, bro?
Click to expand...

If the government wants to intrude onto your personal choices, it can now do so if it calls it a tax (it's even more awesome when that same government insisted it wasn't a tax for the preceding 18 months up to and including passage via reconciliation). Where were you in 2011?
 
jhmd2000 said:
I have come to appreciate your guys long-held view that the Constitution is a living, breathing thing that you can make stuff up if you don't like the way it was written. If you can make up a right to privacy (and you did for 50 years), then I guess the rest of us can make up how it is applied, right? Feel free to argue for strict construction against this reckless practice.

But let's start this little game where it began: what is the basis for objecting to welfare drug screening on Constitutional grounds (that three different posters confidently rushed towards concluding, sans citation)?
Click to expand...

i havent actually objected to it. i was just curious to your (and the greater GOP) complaint re: the ACA and was hoping for a quick answer
 
jhmd2000 said:
I have come to appreciate your guys long-held view that the Constitution is a living, breathing thing that you can make stuff up if you don't like the way it was written. If you can make up a right to privacy (and you did for 50 years), then I guess the rest of us can make up how it is applied, right? Feel free to argue for strict construction against this reckless practice.

But let's start this little game where it began: what is the basis for objecting to welfare drug screening on Constitutional grounds (that three different posters confidently rushed towards concluding, sans citation)?
Click to expand...

The grounds are fairly obvious you can't abridge the rights against warrantless searches in exchange for food stamps or TANF or anything really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top