Keep gutting the UN

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boatswain2PA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
Neither does the constitution forbid it. There’s an old common law notion that the Founding Fathers would have been very aware of; “that which is not forbidden is permitted”.
Click to expand...
You need to read the 10th Amendment. It says exactly the opposite – when it comes to the Federal Government, that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. That would including funding of private charities.

D
 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ,
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ,
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with my point, not to mention the fact that we have drifted far afield (with my help, I’m afraid) from the original subject of this thread. If you what to start a discussion on what the Constitution does / does not say, feel free to start a thread on the subject. Otherwise lets get back to a subject that is nearer and dearer to my heart – the gutting and eventual collapse of the UN.

D
 
dvdjs said:
Which has nothing to do with my point,

I thought that your point was:

There is no basis in the Constitution that would make such funding legal.

I think that this passage from the Constitution puts that argument to rest.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the totality of the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to finance private charities, which Meals on Wheels is. End of story.

Now can we PLEASE get back to the original topic? I’m done with this bunny trail.

D
 
DaveBj said:
Nothing in the totality of the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to finance private charities, which Meals on Wheels is. End of story
Click to expand...
to lay and collect Taxes… to … provide for the … general Welfare…
[and] to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power…
Click to expand...
Clear?
 
Last edited:
Congress has the power to levy and spend taxes. If you disagree, it’s not some fantasy version of the Constitution you turn to, it’s democracy. Get the party that will tell meals on wheels clientelle to get stuffed.
 
If there’s “nothing left to discuss” on the subject of embryos…well, OK. So, what about the other issues involved with the U.N., or is it that, once the embryo/abortion subject is broached anything else takes a back seat? If that’s true then we have a lot not to discuss, eh? 🙂
 
lazurn to Cathoholic:

.
Read my reply to Theo520.
Click to expand...
.

lazurn to Theo520:

.
That’s like saying that Christians haven’t been able to prevent or reduce sin (or abortion if that’s your preference) so therefore their organizations shouldn’t be funded by those that do the funding.
Click to expand...
.

This is non-sense lazurm.

Christians aren’t worried about the UN merely because the UN can’t seem to reduce abortion.

Christians are worried about the UN in part because the UN “evangelizes” FOR abortion (at least THIS Christian is).

This seems to be “a shoulder-shrugger” to you.

Murdering innocent people is NOT a “meh” to many Christians though.

And that being acceptable to you (at least to overlook in the way you have) tells me a lot about your worldview.

But it is not a persuasive argument to funnel monies from me to THAT type of destruction of mankind.
 
Last edited:
I agree, my analogy is limited and, in fact, incorrect.
I’m not saying that abortion is good. I’m simply saying that it’s one among many issues and that the other issues matter also and that these issues are very much for enhancing and promulgating life on our planet. Why should anyone ignore that?
Being a one issue individual should hint at fanaticism, yes? Especially if it forces one to ignore other important aspects of an organization.
Furthermore, why hasn’t anyone here suggested other ways to deal with the population problem in, say, Africa. How should it be done if not by methods that have been successful and welcomed in that part of the world?
 
Last edited:
Larurm:
Being a one issue individual should hint at fanaticism, yes?
Click to expand...
The only “one issue” group in the UN is the pro-abortion crowd.

But my criticism doesn’t eminate merely from killing innocent people as a mere “issue”.

My criticism of our current UN model stems from killing innocent people as being an “acceptable world view.” (It goes way beyond abortion)

And of course murdering innocents IS unacceptable.

The “fanaticism” lies with the rabid abortionists–not people who want to HELP other people (in ways that EXCLUDE killing them or others).
 
lazurm said:
Furthermore, why hasn’t anyone here suggested other ways to deal with the population problem in, say, Africa. How should it be done if not by methods that have been successful and welcomed in that part of the world?
Click to expand...
That’s a complicated subject, and a bit of a major misdirect for the thread (IMHO)

However now that you ask, economic prosperity and TV are shown to be remarkable at reducing birth rates in developing countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top