What Side of The Fence Are You On?

[black dog]

Gee Wizz thanks for explaining to me again,
Baby's also come available for adoption through Foster care,
You keep forgetting to type WHITE BABYS are not available.
And if you really believe that a half million more children could be adapted out each year you have bumped you head.

Adoption from foster care accounted for 41% (55,303) of all adoptions in 2008. In 2000, they made up 40 percent of all adoptions.International adoptions accounted for 13% (17,416) of all adoptions in 2008. In 2000, 14 percent of all adoptions were of children from foreign countries.Other adoptions (private adoption from adoption agencies or adoption attorneys, tribal, step parent) accounted for the rest—about 46% (63,094) in 2008. In 2000, they accounted for approximately 47 percent of all adoptions.

 

[This_person]

Lighten up Francis.
I was joking around.

 

[This_person]

Gee Wizz thanks for explaining to me again,
Baby's also come available for adoption through Foster care,
You keep forgetting to type WHITE BABYS are not available.
And if you really believe that a half million more children could be adapted out each year you have bumped you head.

Adoption from foster care accounted for 41% (55,303) of all adoptions in 2008. In 2000, they made up 40 percent of all adoptions.International adoptions accounted for 13% (17,416) of all adoptions in 2008. In 2000, 14 percent of all adoptions were of children from foreign countries.Other adoptions (private adoption from adoption agencies or adoption attorneys, tribal, step parent) accounted for the rest—about 46% (63,094) in 2008. In 2000, they accounted for approximately 47 percent of all adoptions.

So, you're saying only babies from other countries that aren't white will be adopted? But, if they're American babies that aren't white, they won't be adopted?

Good point, makes a lot of sense......

 

[Larry Gude]

My argument began in a different direction - and it's that the left usually looks to government to solve their problems on these things - and the right goes a different route.
.

And there are countless examples of 'liberals' who went and took action just like you did. And there are countless examples of 'righties' looking directly to gummint to protect them, especially business.
The reason why the TEA party snark slogan "Keep your big gummint hands off of my social security!" resonates is because there are large kernels of truth in there. Limited gummint types are nearly universally pro military and pro military industrial complex. Someone will come right along and say that at least it is constitutionally mandated as the excuse, as though 'promote the general welfare isn't and as though the size and scope of military we have is necessary to provide for the common defense. Point being we all have FAR more in common with one another than we're comfortable seeing.

Trump got elected by small gummint fans, agreed? He is NOTHING of the kind. From the wall to mass deportations to bombing hell out of ISIS to dealing with China to NAFTA, TPP, big bucks on infrastructure, you name it, everything out of Trump's mouth IS the epitome of BIG gummint. HUGE gummint. And yet the celebration is that this nasty big gummint progressive socialist commie is finally leaving.

None of this is judgement on Trump. I HOPE he does great for the country, same as I hoped Obama would, that Bush would. Bush failed, miserably and so did Obama. Maybe Trump, like Reagan, will do some massive spending that has much broader public good? I hope so.

 

[This_person]

'promote the general welfare

"Provide for the general welfare of the United States"

 

[PsyOps]

Trump got elected by small gummint fans, agreed? He is NOTHING of the kind.

We don't know this at all. We only know what he's said in the past. He's never held office to show us how he would govern/legislate. And 'small government' types voted for him largely because they did not want 4 more years of Obama's failed policies, along with all the political correctness, shoved down our throats.

 

[This_person]

as though the size and scope of military we have is[n't] necessary to provide for the common defense.

This is justifiably debatable. What size should the military and intelligence communities be? How many ships? How many planes? How many bombs? How many troops? How many operatives?

We're not debating whether we should have ships, planes, bombs, troops, and operatives, right? We're debating how many....

 

[This_person]

Trump got elected by small gummint fans, agreed? He is NOTHING of the kind.

I agree he is nothing of the kind. I'm not sue anyone thought he would be, though. Just not establishment.

From the wall to mass deportations to bombing hell out of ISIS to dealing with China to NAFTA, TPP, big bucks on infrastructure, you name it, everything out of Trump's mouth IS the epitome of BIG gummint. HUGE gummint.

Everything you describe here is constitutionally mandated, though. These are not big government (foreign policy? defense? border patrol? post roads? commerce? none of that is big government)

Big government is Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, medicare, social security, ACA, 10,000 pages of regulation per page of law that drives it, HUD, HHS, etc., etc.

None of this is judgement on Trump. I HOPE he does great for the country, same as I hoped Obama would, that Bush would. Bush failed, miserably and so did Obama. Maybe Trump, like Reagan, will do some massive spending that has much broader public good? I hope so.

I'm not in the habit of wishing for bad things to happen (the ends do NOT justify improper or illegal means). I do hope he does well, but I don't expect him to, because I don't expect him to be a follower of the constitution any more than they have since FDR really fouled things up badly.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree he is nothing of the kind. I'm not sue anyone thought he would be, though. Just not establishment. .

So, he's exactly what the left hoped for in Obama? Just not establishment?

 

[Larry Gude]

This is justifiably debatable. What size should the military and intelligence communities be? How many ships? How many planes? How many bombs? How many troops? How many operatives?

We're not debating whether we should have ships, planes, bombs, troops, and operatives, right? We're debating how many....

Same goes for all the rest; education, healthcare, all of it; arguable as to being helpful or even necessary to promote the general welfare. Some, many, would say necessary.

 

[Larry Gude]

"Provide for the general welfare of the United States"

Even worse.

 

[Midnightrider]

We don't know this at all. We only know what he's said in the past. He's never held office to show us how he would govern/legislate. And 'small government' types voted for him largely because they did not way 4 more years of Obama failed policies, along with all the political correctness, shoved down our throats.

I would imagine what he said in the past will be a pretty good indicater of what he will do. Do you have anything else to base an opinion on? Besdues, most of those things were campainge promises. Thats what he is getting elected to do, to build the wall, deport millions, etc...

 

[b23hqb]

"Provide for the general welfare of the United States"

It's "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare", as LG stated. No biggie, really, but something every American should have memorized since elementary school. I seriously doubt it for any generation after 1970, probably.

 

[PsyOps]

I would imagine what he said in the past will be a pretty good indicater of what he will do. Do you have anything else to base an opinion on? Besdues, most of those things were campainge promises. Thats what he is getting elected to do, to build the wall, deport millions, etc...

The problem with that is, he's been on all sides of nearly every issue. I've stated it several times that we just don't know which Trump we're going to get; and that's why I am apprehensive about him. It's going to be interesting seeing what sort of leader he will be. Will he steer the ship, or will he be steered by congress? If he gets a democrat congress, will he govern differently? We are going to find out most of these things pretty quickly.

 

[This_person]

So, he's exactly what the left hoped for in Obama? Just not establishment?

I'm not sure they hoped for anti-establishment in Obama. I believe they hoped for Sanders in Obama.

 

[b23hqb]

Even worse.

Yup.

Just take a look around at what all that "providing" the general welfare has done for the financial and moral fabric of the country.

 

[This_person]

Same goes for all the rest; education, healthcare, all of it; arguable as to being helpful or even necessary to promote the general welfare. Some, many, would say necessary.

Except that promoting the general welfare is not a legal requirement as established in the Constitution. Providing for the general welfare of the United States, not her people, is.

 

[PsyOps]

It's "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare", as LG stated. No biggie, really, but something every American should have memorized since elementary school. I seriously doubt it for any generation after 1970, probably.

Article 1 Section 8:

"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". "Promote" is in the preamble.

 

[Midnightrider]

The problem with that is, he's been on all sides of nearly every issue. I've stated it several times that we just don't know which Trump we're going to get; and that's why I am apprehensive about him. It's going to be interesting seeing what sort of leader he will be. Will he steer the ship, or will he be steered by congress? If he gets a democrat congress, will he govern differently? We are going to find out most of these things pretty quickly.

in almost every case, even when he is arguing from a 'conservative' position, he is arguing for larger government. Other than his nebulous statements about shutting down agencies or gutting the fed, he is pretty consistently in favor of policies that will create more, not less government.

 

[Larry Gude]

Except that promoting the general welfare is not a legal requirement as established in the Constitution. Providing for the general welfare of the United States, not her people, is.

Which, again, as we've had this argument, is even worse. "Promoting" might be, say a public highway. "Providing" might be, say, a car. Point being that, left and right, we are, by and large, all fans of big gummint.