Why Do They Hate America?
-
jparken wrote:
It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws.
And for the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws.
jparken wrote:
it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
yeah,why can't we all be good subjects and kow tow to the tyranny the way you do.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Escalation only ever ends one way.
It past the point of no return a long time ago.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
It past the point of no return a long time ago.
I happen to think so. That doesn't bode well. I know doomsaying isn't particularly popular, but I prefer to face reality than think we'll solve our problems "somehow."
Cheers, Patrick
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I have considered running for office simply BECAUSE I am so disillusioned
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
Seriously, I have no idea where to even start. It has been my experience that I can be a very moving speaker, but I seriously have no idea where to even begin. Merely registering as a candidate is easy; where does one get funding, media coverage, etc? Blah.
Cheers, Patrick
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
We muddle along as best we can and keep the country moving forward despite the whining of those on the opposing side.
That muddling along lasted about 80 years. The problem is that the left never gives in, it never compromises, it is an all or nothing philsophy. It is incapable of meeting anyone half way. It is like a python that relaxes its grip just long enough to squeeze a little tighter.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
That muddling along lasted about 80 years.
For those who don't realize, Stan is referring to the Civil War. Muddling along doesn't cut it. Real compromise and real commensurability must be achieved if we expect to avoid another one. Problem is, this time the divide isn't regional, isn't based in economics, and isn't limited to states. It's people, everywhere. We're talking anarchy if we don't figure out something. The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
Cheers, Patrick
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That muddling along lasted about 80 years.
For those who don't realize, Stan is referring to the Civil War. Muddling along doesn't cut it. Real compromise and real commensurability must be achieved if we expect to avoid another one. Problem is, this time the divide isn't regional, isn't based in economics, and isn't limited to states. It's people, everywhere. We're talking anarchy if we don't figure out something. The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
That may be true of conservatives but certainly not of republicans. The republicans compromise on everything. Even when they have complete power to do what ever they please, the left still somehow finds a way to exert its will. Just look at how hard they fight over every last supreme court nominee. Those kinds of battles rarely happened in the past, and seldom happen when the president is a democrat. But, by God, let a conservative judge be nominated and its a battle to the death. If Bush had been a real leader, with a congress controlled by his own party, he would have effectively crushed the political opposition for as long as it took to complete his duties as commander in chief the way a Lincoln or an FDR would have. Bush's major problem is not his unwillingness to compromise, it is his unwillingness to bring the full constitutional authority and power of his office to bear.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I've been curious about the motivation of some of the "hate America first" crowd on CP like Red and Stan. They despise the very things that make the United States a great nation: freedom, tolerance, interoperability, etc. The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws. They also believe the landed gentry should control the means of (agrarian, of course) production and capital, and that there should be no national military. After all, the framers of US Constitution never envisioned nor wanted a permanent standing Army. What's up with the attitude, America-haters?
I think exactly we should be getting back to that exact constitution that has been eroded by generations of elitist idiots, who do everything in their power to chip away at those rights. Free speech, right of the people to bear arms in their own defense, the right to be free from military occupation, the right to privacy, the right to defend yourself in court, with a fair court, and a jury, freedom from torture are all worthy causes that should not be slighted in any way.
Ron Paul for President of the United States of America
-
I think exactly we should be getting back to that exact constitution that has been eroded by generations of elitist idiots, who do everything in their power to chip away at those rights. Free speech, right of the people to bear arms in their own defense, the right to be free from military occupation, the right to privacy, the right to defend yourself in court, with a fair court, and a jury, freedom from torture are all worthy causes that should not be slighted in any way.
Ron Paul for President of the United States of America
JWood wrote:
the right to privacy
You would have to get rid of the IRS to get back to the consitution's original 4th amendment interpreation of that. It certainly had nothing to do with phone calls.
JWood wrote:
freedom from torture
for American citizens (which, in fact, has never been threatened)
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
That may be true of conservatives but certainly not of republicans. The republicans compromise on everything. Even when they have complete power to do what ever they please, the left still somehow finds a way to exert its will. Just look at how hard they fight over every last supreme court nominee. Those kinds of battles rarely happened in the past, and seldom happen when the president is a democrat. But, by God, let a conservative judge be nominated and its a battle to the death. If Bush had been a real leader, with a congress controlled by his own party, he would have effectively crushed the political opposition for as long as it took to complete his duties as commander in chief the way a Lincoln or an FDR would have. Bush's major problem is not his unwillingness to compromise, it is his unwillingness to bring the full constitutional authority and power of his office to bear.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
the left still somehow finds a way to exert its will. Just look at how hard they fight over every last supreme court nominee. Those kinds of battles rarely happened in the past, and seldom happen when the president is a democrat
Hate to intrude on your world with a dose of reality but... The Senate was launched on a full-blown filibuster, with one South Carolina senator consuming time by reading "long passages of James F. Byrnes's memoirs in a thick Southern accent," according to a newspaper account. That four-day talkathon by Republicans in September 1968 has largely been forgotten.[^] The 10 nominees filibustered by Democrats between 2001 and 2005 hardly compare to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by the Republicans' under-the-radar procedural maneuvers.[^]
-
JWood wrote:
the right to privacy
You would have to get rid of the IRS to get back to the consitution's original 4th amendment interpreation of that. It certainly had nothing to do with phone calls.
JWood wrote:
freedom from torture
for American citizens (which, in fact, has never been threatened)
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
You would have to get rid of the IRS
I'm all for that. Let's go back to tariffs as the primary source of federal funds. That will cut the budget by 97% and take us back to the good old days of limited government. Then we can institute the Jefferson's agrarian society by putting us onto collective farms after we graduate from re-education centers.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
the left still somehow finds a way to exert its will. Just look at how hard they fight over every last supreme court nominee. Those kinds of battles rarely happened in the past, and seldom happen when the president is a democrat
Hate to intrude on your world with a dose of reality but... The Senate was launched on a full-blown filibuster, with one South Carolina senator consuming time by reading "long passages of James F. Byrnes's memoirs in a thick Southern accent," according to a newspaper account. That four-day talkathon by Republicans in September 1968 has largely been forgotten.[^] The 10 nominees filibustered by Democrats between 2001 and 2005 hardly compare to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by the Republicans' under-the-radar procedural maneuvers.[^]
Bullshit. The supreme court is the only significant judicial battle ground and historically there is a far greater rate of leftist judges being confirmed by republicans than 'strict constructionists' being confirmed by democrats. That represents compromise from the right, and none from the left. In terms of what you are referring to, it only stands to reason that more judicial nominees will be fillibustered in congress when the opposing party has the white house than otherwise. Now that dems have the congress, we will see far more opposition to his judges than occured when they didn't have it. Since the courts have assumed so much power and authority in our society over the last several decades, that is to be expected. I want conservatives to fight to keep liberal judges out of the courts. And I expect liberals to do the same to those who are conservative. The republicans just need to increase their opposition to leftists in the supreme court.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You would have to get rid of the IRS
I'm all for that. Let's go back to tariffs as the primary source of federal funds. That will cut the budget by 97% and take us back to the good old days of limited government. Then we can institute the Jefferson's agrarian society by putting us onto collective farms after we graduate from re-education centers.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I'm all for that. Let's go back to tariffs as the primary source of federal funds. That will cut the budget by 97% and take us back to the good old days of limited government. Then we can institute the Jefferson's agrarian society by putting us onto collective farms after we graduate from re-education centers.
All I'm saying is that privacy as defined by the 4th amendment is violated every single day by the IRS. You can't defend that and at the same time claim that 'domestic survellence' violates some kind of precious constitutional freedom. Thats absurd. The very notion that the government can monitor my most private financial transaction at will with no warrent of any kind, but it can't monitor telephone calls blasted into the ether, bounced off of satellites, and through thousands of relays, etc, makes such a monstorous mockery of the 4th amendment that anyone whining about their 'privacy rights' are little more than a leftist clown. You can listen to my phone calls anytime you like, just keep your fucking hands off my personel financial transactions.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
I'm all for that. Let's go back to tariffs as the primary source of federal funds. That will cut the budget by 97% and take us back to the good old days of limited government. Then we can institute the Jefferson's agrarian society by putting us onto collective farms after we graduate from re-education centers.
All I'm saying is that privacy as defined by the 4th amendment is violated every single day by the IRS. You can't defend that and at the same time claim that 'domestic survellence' violates some kind of precious constitutional freedom. Thats absurd. The very notion that the government can monitor my most private financial transaction at will with no warrent of any kind, but it can't monitor telephone calls blasted into the ether, bounced off of satellites, and through thousands of relays, etc, makes such a monstorous mockery of the 4th amendment that anyone whining about their 'privacy rights' are little more than a leftist clown. You can listen to my phone calls anytime you like, just keep your fucking hands off my personel financial transactions.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can listen to my phone calls anytime you like, just keep your f****ing hands off my personel financial transactions.
If I were a Christian, I'd say "Love of money is the root of all evil." But I'm not. So, I'll just point out that you will need to abolish the 16th amendment and then roll back the revenue laws. I don't recall if you favor a VAT or consumption tax, but that kind of tax is just as intrusive as income tax and creates even more paperwork and engenders even more lack of privacy at all levels of the production, distribution and consumption chain.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
Seriously, I have no idea where to even start. It has been my experience that I can be a very moving speaker, but I seriously have no idea where to even begin. Merely registering as a candidate is easy; where does one get funding, media coverage, etc? Blah.
Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
where does one get funding, media coverage, etc?
The following relates to local office, but moving up is just a matter of scale. Most local candidates start with personal funds and donations from friends and family. Once you form a campaign committee, you can accept donations from the general public. The first step of media coverage is sending a press release announcing your campaign to local papers, TV and radio stations. Follow that up with letters to the editor and position papers, and send out press releases for campaign events, such as fund-raising dinners, speeches and debates. Once you generate some momentum, the press will follow you. I'm not saying it's easy to run for office, but if you believe strongly enough, it's doable.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can listen to my phone calls anytime you like, just keep your f****ing hands off my personel financial transactions.
If I were a Christian, I'd say "Love of money is the root of all evil." But I'm not. So, I'll just point out that you will need to abolish the 16th amendment and then roll back the revenue laws. I don't recall if you favor a VAT or consumption tax, but that kind of tax is just as intrusive as income tax and creates even more paperwork and engenders even more lack of privacy at all levels of the production, distribution and consumption chain.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
If I were a Christian, I'd say "Love of money is the root of all evil." But I'm not. So, I'll just point out that you will need to abolish the 16th amendment and then roll back the revenue laws. I don't recall if you favor a VAT or consumption tax, but that kind of tax is just as intrusive as income tax and creates even more paperwork and engenders even more lack of privacy at all levels of the production, distribution and consumption chain.
Fine. Still, anyone who does support the 16th amendment has absolutely no moral authority to complaining about the lose of privacy rigths - there aren't any. The government can determine anything it wants to know about you any time it likes based upon the 16th amendment with no warrent of any kind.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
If I were a Christian, I'd say "Love of money is the root of all evil." But I'm not. So, I'll just point out that you will need to abolish the 16th amendment and then roll back the revenue laws. I don't recall if you favor a VAT or consumption tax, but that kind of tax is just as intrusive as income tax and creates even more paperwork and engenders even more lack of privacy at all levels of the production, distribution and consumption chain.
Fine. Still, anyone who does support the 16th amendment has absolutely no moral authority to complaining about the lose of privacy rigths - there aren't any. The government can determine anything it wants to know about you any time it likes based upon the 16th amendment with no warrent of any kind.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
anyone who does support the 16th amendment has absolutely no moral authority to complaining about the lose of privacy rigths
I don't recall either supporting the 16th or complaining about privacy rights. Since you brought it up, though, I believe in the right to be left alone as long as I'm not bothering anyone else. It's unfortunate that today's world may make that impossible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
government can determine anything it wants to know about you any time it likes based upon the 16th amendment with no warrent
Pretty much. We have given away overwhelming power to government at all levels. Even homeowners associations accrue invasive rights and control over persons and property.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws.
Ummmmm.... the US founding fathers did want each state to have a certain level of independence. Don't believe it? Crack a history book. :rolleyes: What's the point of local and state governments if not to tailor local and state law?? :confused:
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, they should read the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
anyone who does support the 16th amendment has absolutely no moral authority to complaining about the lose of privacy rigths
I don't recall either supporting the 16th or complaining about privacy rights. Since you brought it up, though, I believe in the right to be left alone as long as I'm not bothering anyone else. It's unfortunate that today's world may make that impossible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
government can determine anything it wants to know about you any time it likes based upon the 16th amendment with no warrent
Pretty much. We have given away overwhelming power to government at all levels. Even homeowners associations accrue invasive rights and control over persons and property.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
don't recall either supporting the 16th or complaining about privacy rights.
This entire little branch of the thread began with the mention of 'privacy' in regards to original intent and my response to it. Keep up.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Even homeowners associations accrue invasive rights and control over persons and property.
I could give a damn about homeowners associations. I don't belong to one and am not obligated to (so far).
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
don't recall either supporting the 16th or complaining about privacy rights.
This entire little branch of the thread began with the mention of 'privacy' in regards to original intent and my response to it. Keep up.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Even homeowners associations accrue invasive rights and control over persons and property.
I could give a damn about homeowners associations. I don't belong to one and am not obligated to (so far).
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
This entire little branch of the thread began with the mention of 'privacy' in regards to original intent
That was JWood, not me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I could give a damn about homeowners associations. I don't belong to one and am not obligated to (so far).
That's how I feel about federal government power. My HOA, County Administrator and State government have far more negative impact on my daily life than what the feds do. I could give a shit who controls the WH and Congress, but the little local people who have their knife to my throat are the ones that give me grief. For example, I run my company out of my garage and need more space than the current 620 square feet. Zoning laws keep me from putting up a building on my property even though I have an acre with plenty of room. I have to get the County Council to pass an amendment to the comprehensive plan ($2,200), then apply for rezoning ($1,100), then apply for building permits ($3,600), and pay a road impact fee ($4,500) just so me, my wife, and our one non-family employee can work in a larger warehouse.