No pride.  Sorry, even when we were "working poor" we had pride of ownership.  No one "gave" us anything, and we worked for every penny.  I have been the "working poor" and I know I never want to be on welfare or poverty.  What someone gives, they can take too.

Yes, what about China - circa 1970.  My how they were in utopia!

China does not own a piece of us, but they do have a good trade balance.  WHy?  It was not communism.  They are getting out of it and going to a market economy and THAT is what is saving them.  Not communism.  Still, they are a dictatorship.  Why dont you emigrate if it is so shangra-la?

Taht does not mean 20th century welfare.  The statement (and the intent) was to provide a safe place to live, not what became welfare as we know it.  You may have read it, but it does not appear you understand it.

p.s. They get around the constitution with the interstate commerce clause.  Have you ever wondered why you dont go the federal Social Services agency for your food stamps?  That is because they are run by the states.  Tehy may be chearing the system, but so far they have not thrown out the constitution.  Yet at least.

I saw the quote...but not the source  [musta missed it] .... but that description would be no different to the US.  Australia is really just alike....except we drive on the other side of the road...and spell English words 'correctly'....

BDBF, this was not directed specifically at you - it was a reference to public (and published) threats/claims made by leftist fear-mongers.  I've not accused you of being a racist.  Liberal, yes, but that is not a personal attack, even if you choose to make unfounded assumptions.

Those are the reasons stated for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, not a Constitutional license or rationale to take from one to give to another.  That's as far as they intended it to go - it was the Preamble, called Preamble for a reason.  They enumerated the general objectives to be achieved by adopting the Constitution, nothing more.

Article 1, Section 8 addresses the authority of Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  I think the Fifth Amendment gives us a better idea as to the attitude of the Founders toward 'taking' '... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

I already had been characterized as a leftist and a liberal.  It's all over throughput this thread.  When I specifically had indicated my objection to this characterization which was based on "our candidate losing" your initial response was trite with "who do you think".  Furthermore your level of hostility towards me escalated thereafter.  I think you were intentially flaming at me specifically because the mentioned offensive comment was specifically addressed to me.

Additionally, when I was trying to make clear to Dr Guy I was unwilling to discuss something with him you jumped on me again.  So, Daiwa since nothing has been said to you I think my complaint with the moderation of this thread is valid.

And here's very fine examples of personal attacks.  Especially since all I was indicating was my unwillingness to discuss something with Dr. Guy.

This:

was in response to you telling two different people this:

and was nothing but a suggestion, offered up in the same spirit & tone as your posts, not a personal attack.

For the mods: End of discussion (at least for me).

Daiwa when you stated

It was a clear uncalled for flame directed my way especially when it was easy to see I had not directed that comment to you at that time.  You will not likely find me addressing you or Dr Guy on any posts again regarding any matter of any type or kind.  Your conduct towards me has been excessive.

Immigration has ALWAYS poured into this country.  Bigots in the good old days use to use the same words to describe the Italians, Irish, etc. etc.  All immigration does is stir the pot and change the mixture.  It always adds up to 1 America.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

When was the last time we had a real riot?  I remember it...Rodney King.  And that was NOTHING compared to Watts.

Again, more fearmongering with no basis in fact whatsoever.

And yet you spent three nigh neverending posts bashing a man who has never done you nor the country any wrong.  Even his short tenure at Fanny Mae in 2000 was marked by him raising the flag of "UH-OH, something's wrong here!" and so they gave him the boot.

If Obama appoints Kissinger, I'll agree with you.  Otherwise, Rahm's a non issue for me at this stage.  Everyone deserves the change to screw up mightily and get the boot, haha.

Okay, we have ONE verbal gaffe for Obama.  Microsoft had to release Windows in 64 bit just to keep track of Bush's gaffes...

from the same article...

"“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008."

So, they PREDICTED it might be, and it wasn't FOR REPUBLICANS (cause they undoubtedly were depressed going into this one) but it WAS a record for Democrats.

And so the media made a PREDICTION which didn't through...where exactly did hyperbole and "truth" come into this again?

Not me.  I'll ALWAYS give you shite for locking down threads, bro!  

Bullshit.  See below.

It's called taxation WITH representation and it has been the way of this country since it revolted against England for taxation WITHOUT representation.  If you don't like the fact that this country spreads the wealth around a bit, you are welcome to leave. 

After all, every other country...oh wait...every other country spreads the wealth around MORE than we do.  It's why they have longer life expectancy, health care they can count on, take care of their mentally ill so they don't go all postal on our children in college or high school, etc.

So, you've exercised your position with your vote.  The American way.  And I voted to help those less fortunate, amounting to a 2% shift in taxation for upper income earners...LIKE MYSELF.  I didn't find it unreasonable at all.  After all, I've been rich and I've been broke before.  I remember both very well, thank you.

So, in four years, feel free to vote for the more selfish, less generous, candidate or party of your choice.