K
Kaninchen
Guest
To my mind it makes them insubstantial and whether it’s Mogg, or Bojo, or Corbyn (for that matter), you wonder more about their owners - from right-wing US billionaires to Len McCluskey.
Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader
- Status
N
niceatheist
Guest
You were the one blathering on about enumerated powers. You seemed woefully unaware as to the nature of the US government’s borrowing powers and why they exist.
It’s as often observe with debating more Libertarian leaning people, that they seem u aware the US they believe in ceased to exist in 1787 because the predecessor constitution was a startling failure. And yet that’s the constitution they think the US should have.
It’s as often observe with debating more Libertarian leaning people, that they seem u aware the US they believe in ceased to exist in 1787 because the predecessor constitution was a startling failure. And yet that’s the constitution they think the US should have.
Blathering. When did I say the government couldn’t tax, couldn’t borrow? Reading comprehension helps.
Speaking of civics, the enumerated powers are in article 1,section 8 of the constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.
The issue is spending of things not found there.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why is it necessary that I be specific when I am not arguing for a specific proposal? I am arguing for a general principle, in which the indeterminate “slightly” is adequate. Is this another deflection?LeafByNiggle:
Define slightly. Be specific.
Because your general principle could allow for tens of millions of foreign nationals entering the country.
I am all in favor of expanding immigration, more than slightly as the country has need. What I oppose is foreign nationals crossing the border illegally.
Meanwhile, strongly promote individual rights, limited government, and free markets in nations who receive our foreign aid so their citizens can be successful at home.
There. Specific.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, if we agree in expanding immigration but disagree only in the degree or the method, I can accept that.LeafByNiggle:
Because your general principle could allow for tens of millions of foreign nationals entering the country.
What I proposed was to give economic migrants “slightly more consideration” than they are getting now. That in itself does not necessitate encouraging illegal border crossings.
I can agree with that, depending on the means you propose to “strongly promote” those things. If you think Trump’s recent agreement with the President of Guatemala is a model for such an effort, I will have to disagree with that.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Well, you don’t , but the majority of progressive leadership does. Open borders is their goal.
So, again, how specific is slight?
I don’t know the details, but foreign aid must be tied to these considerations.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sure.
Yes…JonNC:
Sure.
A
AngelusDomini
Guest
Just like this no doubt…
www.independent.co.uk
Even in the Catholic Herald this quote was used: However, he did accept he profits “in a very roundabout way”.
“It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be,” he said.
Anti-abortion MP Jacob Rees-Mogg admits profiting from sale of abortion pills
The Somerset MP is against abortion even in rape cases, but profits from the sale of pills widely used in illegal abortions in Indonesia
www.independent.co.uk
Even in the Catholic Herald this quote was used: However, he did accept he profits “in a very roundabout way”.
“It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be,” he said.
- Status