- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Debate: "Small Gov Conservatives are not really small Gov"
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:47 pm to AllbyMyRelf
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:47 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I’m sure the law you cited was passed under the tortured reading of the interstate commerce clause
Correct
0
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Saying people are too stupid to contract with others and they need protection from government applies in both cases.
No it doesn't. One is the federal gov FORCING private citizens in to GOV mandated contracts with a company.
The other does not.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yep. It's also similar to the Student Loan Forgivers that constantly say: "Well, I was a college student, I didn't know I had to pay the money back".
This reminds me of the leftists promoting Obamacare because people they claimed people were too stupid and didn't agree to the right contract, and they needed government to make these plans illegal, instead.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Bringing up something that didn't exist (although the interstate system was a national defense initiative, FWIW, so Constitutional outside of the ICC) at the time is a weird gotcha attempt when immigration exists in both eras.
Why don't you bring up something else that also existed in both eras, like regulating guns or something?
Just pointing out how inane your comment is. We have immigration laws that for the most part neither party follows nor enforces. The Constitution explicitly states that it is the duty of the fedgov to protect the people from invasion. One party is making a minimal effort to enforce that mandate, while the other is actively violating that mandate, not only allowing, but facilitating the continued invasion.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 12:56 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
The authority to do what? Set caps on credit card interest rates?
Yes.
quote:
The founders likely did not envision that the federal government would have the ability to regulate interest rates on private indebtedness agreements.
Loans were around back then. Revolving credit was around then too. And they were fully aware of Corps. East India Company = imperium in imperio.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 1:01 pm to BCreed1
BTW... Have enjoyed this thread. It has not devolved into shite attacks
Posted on 9/19/24 at 1:22 pm to BCreed1
quote:I didn’t say they didn’t know what credit agreements were. I said they likely didn’t envision federal government regulation of interest rates in those agreements.
Loans were around back then. Revolving credit was around then too. And they were fully aware of Corps. East India Company = imperium in imperio.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 1:47 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I didn’t say they didn’t know what credit agreements were. I said they likely didn’t envision federal government regulation of interest rates in those agreements.
What gives you that impression?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:17 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Is is small gov to have NO limits or criteria to immigration? Do we not have that right now? You have a candidate stating that she will close all detention centers. That's reducing federal gov. So is she now conservative?
You’re correct if you also eliminate welfare and govt programs to encourage those immigrants to come here.
Let the free market economy dictate the free flow of labor. If there is demand for workers they will come, if there is no jobs they won’t come. Pretty simple concept and i would be all for it
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:23 pm to BCreed1
quote:
I am a small gov, constitutional republic guy.
No you are not. You are a big government/central planner type.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:31 pm to BCreed1
quote:The 10th amendment. It’s not up to me to find a sentence saying the government can’t do something. It’s up to the government to find a sentence saying that can.
What gives you that impression?
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:32 pm to BCreed1
quote:
What part of the Constitution gave Congress the power to create US Law: 12 USC 85:
At what point in history are you referring?
At the point of our country's foundation, the answer is "nothing".
Post-Wickard, the answer is "the interstate commerce clause".
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:33 pm to troyt37
quote:
The Constitution explicitly states that it is the duty of the fedgov to protect the people from invasion.
Invasion =/= Immigration
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:36 pm to BCreed1
Border Control is literally a direct government role outlined in the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with "Small Government", the Constitution directly gives government the role of defending our borders
It has nothing to do with "Small Government", the Constitution directly gives government the role of defending our borders
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:36 pm to BCreed1
quote:
I am a small gov, constitutional republic guy.
No, you aren't.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Invasion =/= Immigration
Invasion = ILLEGAL immigration.
We have somewhere between 20 and 40 million criminal illegals in this country. It's an invasion.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 8:30 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Do you get to pick and choose what areas Gov should be involved?
Yes. Like most people, conservatives are hypocrites. They claim limiting credit card rates is big government but want the government to keep weed illegal.
Tariffs to protect American industry are big government, but the government banning abortion isn't.
Most of the people who argue by claiming you're not small government simply want the government to do exactly what they want. They have no problem with big government when something they don't like is being banned.
You can still be small government and support some government intervention. The whole "small government" argument is just a goto generic argument when the poster can't articulate a valid reason to support their position.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 8:31 pm to BCreed1
If you don’t have borders you can forget about having a country.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 8:43 pm to BCreed1
Red herring is red.
Posted on 9/19/24 at 8:46 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
Small government means balanced, necessary governance within constitutional limits, not an absence of government entirely. Criticism of government actions should consider whether they expand beyond constitutional bounds, not merely their size or presence.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News