Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 My dictionary defines it as:"The exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place" Sounds reasonable to me. Do you agree that trains are one way that commerce can occur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Do you agree that trains are one way that commerce can occur? does he agree that trains provide a HUGE amount of commerce currently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Do you agree that trains are one way that commerce can occur? Yes. Do you agree that REGULATING said commerce is not the same as PROVIDING it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yes. Do you agree that REGULATING said commerce is not the same as PROVIDING it? No, I don't. Not really. But the Commerce Clause says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Anyway, I'll ask the questions here: Do you believe in order to regulate commerce properly, i.e. effectively, the government needs to be able to regulate trains, among other forms of transportation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 if you have to "supply" to "bring order" than its "regulated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 anyways this thread needs less stupidness and more cool trains: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 No, I don't. Not really. But the Commerce Clause says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Then we have a fundamental disagreement on the english language. Anyway, I'll ask the questions here: Yes sir. Do you believe in order to regulate commerce properly, i.e. effectively, the government needs to be able to regulate trains, among other forms of transportation? In terms of providing a common standard in which the several States can be compatable? Such as track dimensions, safe curve radius, etc.? Yes. This is not the same as building the track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 My dictionary defines it as:"The exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place" Sounds reasonable to me. So the federal government shouldn't fund something that could move goods from one state to another, and as a result most likely result in lower prices for most consumers? Something that could also work to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil? Something that could cut down on congestion on our roads, and as a result of that the amount of pollution in our air? Am I interpreting you correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 if you have to "supply" to "bring order" than its "regulated." No. If you supply to bring order, then it is supplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 So the federal government shouldn't fund something that could move goods from one state to another, and as a result most likely result in lower prices for most consumers? Something that could also work to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil? Something that could cut down on congestion on our roads, and as a result of that the amount of pollution in our air? Am I interpreting you correctly? No. The States should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 No. If you supply to bring order, then it is supplied. what the **** r u talking about? this is like law 101. paging predicto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 anyways this thread needs less stupidness and more cool trains: Or stupid trains: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 don't forget grumpy trains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 what the **** r u talking about? this is like law 101. paging predicto. If that truely is Law 101, then Law sure has a funny way with the english language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 If that truely is Law 101, then Law sure has a funny way with the english language. Its actually ConLaw I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 what the **** r u talking about? this is like law 101. paging predicto. I already tried. armstrong001 has his own interpretation of the constitution and the powers of government. He is not interested in how the Constitution has been applied for 200 years, he is interested in parsing dictionary definitions of certain specific words and phrases in the document. If you are going to engage him, you are going to have to do it on the level he has chosen. He's not going to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thanks for the visual representation of 'life under Obama' Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thanks for the visual representation of 'life under Obama' Larry What, hardworking people cleaning up after Bush's messes? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I already tried.armstrong001 has his own interpretation of the constitution and the powers of government. He is not interested in how the Constitution has been applied for 200 years, he is interested in parsing dictionary definitions of certain specific words and phrases in the document. If you are going to engage him, you are going to have to do it on the level he has chosen. He's not going to stop. Actually, I've been reflecting on how much this feels like a MSF hijacking. The "I don't care about reality!". The "Please, people! Don't feed him any more!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I already tried.armstrong001 has his own interpretation of the constitution and the powers of government. He is not interested in how the Constitution has been applied for 200 years, he is interested in parsing dictionary definitions of certain specific words and phrases in the document. If you are going to engage him, you are going to have to do it on the level he has chosen. He's not going to stop. And as I have tried to tell you, the Constitution was applied incorrectly for 150 years in other respects, specifically civil rights. But you won't listen either. Please educate me on how the commerce clause and general welfare clause can be interpreted so broadly, as to give the Federal government just about any power it wants? Why not just write in the Constitution "The Congress shall have the power to legislate" and leave it at that? Because the writers wanted LIMITED Federal government. By not reading the words they wrote, or making up new meanings for "regulate", the Federal government goes against the intent of the Constitution. I fully admit that there is 200 years of precident stating that the Federal Government can do whatever the hell it pleases. That still doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard saunders Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Monorail! I call the big one Bitey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 What, hardworking people cleaning up after Bush's messes? :laugh: That was original. The Obamanation has brainwashed you by dropping that phrase 5K times within his first two months in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 That was original. The Obamanation has brainwashed you by dropping that phrase 5K times within his first two months in office. hee! One lame shot deserves another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Monorail!I call the big one Bitey! [sigh] remember when the Simpsons were funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.