Good news...
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country,
Not war like enough, actually. If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
That could all change very quickly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That could all change very quickly.
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world. I was thinking more of unwarranted attacks on other countries, such as Vietnam, or Iraq, that have since messed with peace in the world.
Oakman wrote:
our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world.
I pretty much agree. Indeed, except for the bracing effect of the war on our economy, I haven't the slightest idea why we wasted our blood and money bailing the rest of the world out. I'm sure Germany and Japan would have done a marvelous job of insuring "peace in the world."
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true.
What apparently you don't understand is that those illegals get free access to the entire healthcare system of the United States. By law, every hospital in the country must treat them without demanding payment, regardless of their problem. I am, truly, sorry that you had a bad experience when you staggered into a unknown doctor's office here in the U.S. but you certainly have read testimonials from a number of us saying that we are quite happy with our treatment, pay very little for it, and have sufficient interaction with our medical people to feel they deal with us as human being. You might ask yourself whether I, as a non-taxpayer, would be guaranteed to have fared better in Australia than you did here. Although you might have trouble taking the blinders off.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program.
It's my opinion that "promote the general Welfare" pretty much provides carte blanche. Knowing how you like to quote the Preamble I'm surprised you missed this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
No, the term 'general welfare' was intended specifically to deny carte blanche. I'm surprised you miss that. No, actually, I'm not.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That could all change very quickly.
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
It sure as hell would have been mine. The primary reason the world is in the state that it is in is specifically because the ancient mantle of empire passed to the US and we refused to wear it.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
It means that there is no political motivation at all to limit illegal migration. The economic aspect of it could be easily controlled if, in fact, there was not such a hugh political advantage for the democrat party to do nothing at all about it. It is one issue that conservatives feel very frustrated over. We have no political representation at all on the issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
It all depends on how things play out. If all the big countries are sufficiently humbled by economic chaos, the entire political infrastructure could be very vulnerable to revolutionary change.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
I guess I missed that in my readings of the Constitution. Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
The entire damned thing, and similarly the declaration of independence. The founders certainly thought they had created a government that disallowed any possibility of what would later become known as collectivism. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Madison. And Franklin Pierce best articulated subsequent generations' understanding of the document... "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -- James Madison "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." -- Thomas Jefferson They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
And I have no problem with regulations - as long as their purpose is to promote the general welfare (protection of the environment, for example), and not to redistribute wealth.
Oakman wrote:
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
I am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
It sure as hell would have been mine. The primary reason the world is in the state that it is in is specifically because the ancient mantle of empire passed to the US and we refused to wear it.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
It means that there is no political motivation at all to limit illegal migration. The economic aspect of it could be easily controlled if, in fact, there was not such a hugh political advantage for the democrat party to do nothing at all about it. It is one issue that conservatives feel very frustrated over. We have no political representation at all on the issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
It all depends on how things play out. If all the big countries are sufficiently humbled by economic chaos, the entire political infrastructure could be very vulnerable to revolutionary change.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is one issue that conservatives feel very frustrated over. We have no political representation at all on the issue.
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If all the big countries are sufficiently humbled by economic chaos, the entire political infrastructure could be very vulnerable to revolutionary change.
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is one issue that conservatives feel very frustrated over. We have no political representation at all on the issue.
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If all the big countries are sufficiently humbled by economic chaos, the entire political infrastructure could be very vulnerable to revolutionary change.
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it? He might profit from economic downturns but he certainly would not profit from a complete collapse. I say it is to make Obama look all the better when things turn around. Soros has invested heavily in Obama, and I think he intends to get as much as he can out of that investment. I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind. And if your goal was some kind of global political system, what more perfect individual could you have backed than Barack Obama?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
And I have no problem with regulations - as long as their purpose is to promote the general welfare (protection of the environment, for example), and not to redistribute wealth.
Oakman wrote:
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
I am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
No, of course not. Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves! :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
The entire damned thing, and similarly the declaration of independence. The founders certainly thought they had created a government that disallowed any possibility of what would later become known as collectivism. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Madison. And Franklin Pierce best articulated subsequent generations' understanding of the document... "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -- James Madison "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." -- Thomas Jefferson They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
The end will be near when the credit rating on U.S. government debt is no longer AAA. Until that time, I remain unconcerned.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The end will be near when the credit rating on U.S. government debt is no longer AAA. Until that time, I remain unconcerned
Have you watched the yields on long-term debt climb recently? The yield on a 10-year Treasury note is up almost a full point. Sooner or later Moody's and S&P will admit what is already becoming evident to our creditors. The more money Obama prints, the less attractive our fixed-rate bonds become. The higher the yields go to offset their lack of appeal, the worse our debt-to-GDP ratio becomes. And, as near as I can tell, none of the people who are worrying about this live in Washington. (As I think about it, Moody's and S&P may be the last organizations to figure out that there's a problem with our Bonds - look how well they did with spotting tghe problem with bundled mortgages.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it? He might profit from economic downturns but he certainly would not profit from a complete collapse. I say it is to make Obama look all the better when things turn around. Soros has invested heavily in Obama, and I think he intends to get as much as he can out of that investment. I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind. And if your goal was some kind of global political system, what more perfect individual could you have backed than Barack Obama?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind.
The return of Matthew Faithful! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it? He might profit from economic downturns but he certainly would not profit from a complete collapse. I say it is to make Obama look all the better when things turn around. Soros has invested heavily in Obama, and I think he intends to get as much as he can out of that investment. I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind. And if your goal was some kind of global political system, what more perfect individual could you have backed than Barack Obama?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration. The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it?
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
What a wuss. Commit to something, Stan. You want lezzie faire or you don't. None of this "maximising the opportunity." You sound like Barney Frank, for pete's sake.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We will have one socialistic government, or we will have no government of any kind. Thats the deal
But, Monte, what's behind door number three?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
But, Monte, what's behind door number three?
They are making soylent green in there. :omg:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind.
The return of Matthew Faithful! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
The return of Matthew Faithful!
Except, again, I acknowledge the paranoia inherent in such arguments. Its just that, being paranoid isn't always the same thing as being wrong.
Oakman wrote:
p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
I would think those are connected. For example, at the very least, I think it is not at all unlikely that a bin Ladin/KGB connection exists and that 9/11 was pay back for Afganistan by the Russians more than anything else.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration. The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it?
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration.
I agree with that. That is why I said conservatives are frustrated by having no affective political representation on the subject. The republicans are the party of business, as such their principles largely overlap with those of conservatives, but not always.
John Carson wrote:
The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
I disagree with that. If the democrats, as a party, still loved their country as much as they do power, they could put a stop to it quite easily. Conservatives would happily unite with them on that issue in a true bipartisan effort. We simply are no longer a constiuency they have any interest in appeasing.
John Carson wrote:
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true?
And maybe it is. I don't deny that. But I will only believe that when I actually see it all fail. If there is some kind of sudden turn around, I'm simply never going to believe that the entire thing wasn't a scam from the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:48 AM
-
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
What the entire document makes clear, is that the founders, and the first several generations of Americans, at the very least, were opposed to the underlieing justification for socialism. There is no hint of any kind that they were opposed to the tenants of free market capitalism. Obviously, the constitution does not represent a ratification of capitalism, but it does represent an overt rejection of colletivism and central planning.
Oakman wrote:
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
I've never denied any of that. In fact, you left out the biggest ones - the IRS,Social Security, etc. My point is that it all remains inherently unconstitutioal given our founding principles. If change is something to believe in, why is a simple re-acknowledgment of those original principles such profoundly unacceptable change? We could wipe all of that away with a few appropriate judicial decisions. But, the only possible way that is going to happen, to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made, is to let everything collpase entirely and start over.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
No, of course not. Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves! :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion.
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion. BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them ;P