Consider the word "constitution"

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Frank, WHY are you spitting in the face of our founding fathers? They created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity or enterprise. AND, they believed in VERY HEAVY handed regulation and restraint on corporations. WHY do you always ignore that fact?

There are a lot of stupid posters here and I find the patience to deal with them because they say the dumbest things and the humor in that alone makes it worth the effort.

I'm not even sure what to make of your post, maybe a recent failed or partial lobotomy is to blame?

You seem to be totally, completely, perfectly ignorant about our founding principles and system of government, you don't seem to have the capacity to understand what a government is.

I feel sorry for these electrons that I'm sending your way.

Hey Frank, obfuscation is not an argument, it is a tactic. Here's what to make of my post. WHY don't you tell me how our founding fathers and their principles and system of government treated corporations?

For the most part, they ignored them. That was left to the States.

 

[Bfgrn]

There are a lot of stupid posters here and I find the patience to deal with them because they say the dumbest things and the humor in that alone makes it worth the effort.

I'm not even sure what to make of your post, maybe a recent failed or partial lobotomy is to blame?

You seem to be totally, completely, perfectly ignorant about our founding principles and system of government, you don't seem to have the capacity to understand what a government is.

I feel sorry for these electrons that I'm sending your way.

Hey Frank, obfuscation is not an argument, it is a tactic. Here's what to make of my post. WHY don't you tell me how our founding fathers and their principles and system of government treated corporations?

For the most part, they ignored them. That was left to the States.

NO, they didn't ignore them Frank. They HEAVILY regulated them. States issued charters, just like they STILL do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Frank, obfuscation is not an argument, it is a tactic. Here's what to make of my post. WHY don't you tell me how our founding fathers and their principles and system of government treated corporations?

For the most part, they ignored them. That was left to the States.

NO, they didn't ignore them Frank. They HEAVILY regulated them. States issued charters, just like they STILL do.

See what I mean about this being a near total waste of time?

I thought we were talking about the constitution of the Federal government

 

[Bfgrn]

For the most part, they ignored them. That was left to the States.

NO, they didn't ignore them Frank. They HEAVILY regulated them. States issued charters, just like they STILL do.

See what I mean about this being a near total waste of time?

I thought we were talking about the constitution of the Federal government

Ah, more obfuscation Frank. The Constitution (please use a majuscule C) is simply the framework of the government our founders created.

YOU said to my2¢: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

A system encompasses more...
–noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives WERE staying true to the system and trying to keep it alive, by dismantling what was undermining of the 'great system our founders put in place'; the NEW Hudson Bay Companies, British East India Companies, and Massachusetts Bay Colonies

But, you are not interested in WHAT our founding fathers actually DID; their system of applying their beliefs, you prefer instead to apply our founding father's framework for government to private entities.

SO...let's LOOK at the system our founding fathers applied to private entities; corporations.

Corporations - Our founders
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NO, they didn't ignore them Frank. They HEAVILY regulated them. States issued charters, just like they STILL do.

See what I mean about this being a near total waste of time?

I thought we were talking about the constitution of the Federal government

Ah, more obfuscation Frank. The Constitution (please use a majuscule C) is simply the framework of the government our founders created.

YOU said to my2¢: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

A system encompasses more...
–noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives WERE staying true to the system and trying to keep it alive, by dismantling what was undermining of the 'great system our founders put in place'; the NEW Hudson Bay Companies, British East India Companies, and Massachusetts Bay Colonies

But, you are not interested in WHAT our founding fathers actually DID; their system of applying their beliefs, you prefer instead to apply our founding father's framework for government to private entities.

SO...let's LOOK at the system our founding fathers applied to private entities; corporations.

Corporations - Our founders
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

I first need to address the electrons that I will use for this post:

When you eliminate all thoughts about life and death, you will be able to totally disregard your earthly life. This will also enable you to concentrate your attention on your task with unwavering determination, meanwhile reinforcing your excellence in communication skills.

Like wild cherry blossoms
Glowing in the morning sun
The Sun shines upon us
We bask in Eternity!

For those who are about to try to talk sense to Bfgrn, we salute you!


Now, I started this OP to discuss the framework of our government highlighting the meaning of the word constitution.

You decided to do your Alec Baldwin Team: America imitation and start railing about corporations, which are nowhere to be found in the document because it dealt with the formation of the government.

Then, not only did you bring it up in the first place, you chided me for reasons I still can't fathom and then, to top it off, you post a paragraph totally agreeing with what I've been saying: corporations had no place in the formation of the government that was left to the States!

Do you see how insane this would look to a normal person?

 

[Bfgrn]

See what I mean about this being a near total waste of time?

I thought we were talking about the constitution of the Federal government

Ah, more obfuscation Frank. The Constitution (please use a majuscule C) is simply the framework of the government our founders created.

YOU said to my2¢: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

A system encompasses more...
–noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives WERE staying true to the system and trying to keep it alive, by dismantling what was undermining of the 'great system our founders put in place'; the NEW Hudson Bay Companies, British East India Companies, and Massachusetts Bay Colonies

But, you are not interested in WHAT our founding fathers actually DID; their system of applying their beliefs, you prefer instead to apply our founding father's framework for government to private entities.

SO...let's LOOK at the system our founding fathers applied to private entities; corporations.

Corporations - Our founders
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

I first need to address the electrons that I will use for this post:

When you eliminate all thoughts about life and death, you will be able to totally disregard your earthly life. This will also enable you to concentrate your attention on your task with unwavering determination, meanwhile reinforcing your excellence in communication skills.

Like wild cherry blossoms
Glowing in the morning sun
The Sun shines upon us
We bask in Eternity!

For those who are about to try to talk sense to Bfgrn, we salute you!


Now, I started this OP to discuss the framework of our government highlighting the meaning of the word constitution.

You decided to do your Alec Baldwin Team: America imitation and start railing about corporations, which are nowhere to be found in the document because it dealt with the formation of the government.

Then, not only did you bring it up in the first place, you chided me for reasons I still can't fathom and then, to top it off, you post a paragraph totally agreeing with what I've been saying: corporations had no place in the formation of the government that was left to the States!

Do you see how insane this would look to a normal person?

Frank, I am not going to watch you chase your tail, so as the only adult in the room, I will take over.

YOU said: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

EXPLAIN, in detail...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, more obfuscation Frank. The Constitution (please use a majuscule C) is simply the framework of the government our founders created.

YOU said to my2¢: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

A system encompasses more...
–noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole

Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives WERE staying true to the system and trying to keep it alive, by dismantling what was undermining of the 'great system our founders put in place'; the NEW Hudson Bay Companies, British East India Companies, and Massachusetts Bay Colonies

But, you are not interested in WHAT our founding fathers actually DID; their system of applying their beliefs, you prefer instead to apply our founding father's framework for government to private entities.

SO...let's LOOK at the system our founding fathers applied to private entities; corporations.

Corporations - Our founders
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

I first need to address the electrons that I will use for this post:

When you eliminate all thoughts about life and death, you will be able to totally disregard your earthly life. This will also enable you to concentrate your attention on your task with unwavering determination, meanwhile reinforcing your excellence in communication skills.

Like wild cherry blossoms
Glowing in the morning sun
The Sun shines upon us
We bask in Eternity!

For those who are about to try to talk sense to Bfgrn, we salute you!


Now, I started this OP to discuss the framework of our government highlighting the meaning of the word constitution.

You decided to do your Alec Baldwin Team: America imitation and start railing about corporations, which are nowhere to be found in the document because it dealt with the formation of the government.

Then, not only did you bring it up in the first place, you chided me for reasons I still can't fathom and then, to top it off, you post a paragraph totally agreeing with what I've been saying: corporations had no place in the formation of the government that was left to the States!

Do you see how insane this would look to a normal person?

Frank, I am not going to watch you chase your tail, so as the only adult in the room, I will take over.

YOU said: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

EXPLAIN, in detail...

I wrote about this in detail, but never posted it so here's the Readers Digest version.

Since 1913 Progressives have launched a full scale, unrelenting counteroffensive against our Founding Principles.

In 1913, they followed the rulebook, they Amended the Constitution and gave us a Central Bank (aka: Federal Reserve) and totally castrated the States as meaningful participants in the political process with respect to controlling the federal government via the 16th Amendment. This was the States Stalingrad, in the future, they would only meet the growing federal government as a defeated and shrinking adversary.

In the 30's, emboldened by their victory and now partners with the Central Bank in decimating the US economy, Progressives tossed the rulebook aside to continue to foist their agenda upon the people. The New Deal was a de facto rewrite of our Founding principles this time without a formal Amendment process. Once Rome, the Federal government was morphing into the Vatican and a once free people were turned back into subjects.

 

[editec]

If capitalism didn't have goverrnment to regulate it, it would invent one.

 

[Bfgrn]

I first need to address the electrons that I will use for this post:

When you eliminate all thoughts about life and death, you will be able to totally disregard your earthly life. This will also enable you to concentrate your attention on your task with unwavering determination, meanwhile reinforcing your excellence in communication skills.

Like wild cherry blossoms
Glowing in the morning sun
The Sun shines upon us
We bask in Eternity!

For those who are about to try to talk sense to Bfgrn, we salute you!


Now, I started this OP to discuss the framework of our government highlighting the meaning of the word constitution.

You decided to do your Alec Baldwin Team: America imitation and start railing about corporations, which are nowhere to be found in the document because it dealt with the formation of the government.

Then, not only did you bring it up in the first place, you chided me for reasons I still can't fathom and then, to top it off, you post a paragraph totally agreeing with what I've been saying: corporations had no place in the formation of the government that was left to the States!

Do you see how insane this would look to a normal person?

Frank, I am not going to watch you chase your tail, so as the only adult in the room, I will take over.

YOU said: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

EXPLAIN, in detail...

I wrote about this in detail, but never posted it so here's the Readers Digest version.

Since 1913 Progressives have launched a full scale, unrelenting counteroffensive against our Founding Principles.

In 1913, they followed the rulebook, they Amended the Constitution and gave us a Central Bank (aka: Federal Reserve) and totally castrated the States as meaningful participants in the political process with respect to controlling the federal government via the 16th Amendment. This was the States Stalingrad, in the future, they would only meet the growing federal government as a defeated and shrinking adversary.

In the 30's, emboldened by their victory and now partners with the Central Bank in decimating the US economy, Progressives tossed the rulebook aside to continue to foist their agenda upon the people. The New Deal was a de facto rewrite of our Founding principles this time without a formal Amendment process. Once Rome, the Federal government was morphing into the Vatican and a once free people were turned back into subjects.

Sorry Frank, but your 'Readers Digest version' doesn't cut it. It is just a pea brain's armchair version that simply allows you to state YOUR pea brained ideological dogma and then cut & run. You FAIL, quite miserably as usual.

If you are going to forward your belief that to save a drowning person you throw them a rock, you need to justify it. You need to explain what led to the Aldrich–Vreeland Act, the National Monetary Commission and the Federal Reserve Act. Then tell us what YOU would have done to remedy a major crisis like the Panic of 1907.

Then, please tell us how YOUR plans and remedies would have vaunted the US dollar to international currency vs the pound, franc and mark without the Federal Reserve Act.

I don't have a problem with an opinion that differs from mine, but I always have a problem when that opinion is not based on facts.

The REAL irony; were these issues and events occurring today, you would be siding with the Aldrich plan. It would have been just another version of the health care debate, where you would have sided with the private sector over a public plan.

The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including Aldrich bill. However, unlike the Aldrich plan which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave controlling interest to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, with a measure of autonomy to Reserve Banks which, for a period of time, were allowed to set their districts' own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the opposition to the proposed reserve system reversed itself, and came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the more populist leaning Democrats.
wiki

 

[Bern80]

No, it was not an unconstitutional rewrite. And when you freakazoids dismantle part of what FDR accomplished, such as the Glass-Steagle act, the nation suffers, just as we are now.

The Constitution will continue to be interpreted in ways that cede more powers to the citizens, and less to the oligarchs. As much as you find this disturbing, we liberals find it to the interest of our nation. Just as we had to fight you concerning voting rights for all Americans, for Social Security, for government agencies such as the CDC, we will have to finish the fight for universal health care, for a distributed grid, that enables all citizens to be both producers and consumers. Yes, and income redistribution to even out the injustices of the present inequities in income.

And you will cry, mewl, puke, and squeal, and eventually be remembered with as much affection as Martin, Barton, and Fish.

Accept that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. How is taxing people for SS, medicare and now for not buying health insurance giving them more power. Money is power the more of it the government takes from you the less power you have. The more government dictates what you must do the less power you have.

And liberals are accused of living in a dream world...WOW, talk about believing in an ignorant Utopia. So we live in a fairy tale benign world where the only wolves are government?

Never said any of that. Please attempt to have an honest discussion. Sure there are dangers to one's life other than government but the fact remains when government takes your money (taxes) and/or tells you what you must do with it (buy health insurance). You are less free

 

[Bfgrn]

Accept that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. How is taxing people for SS, medicare and now for not buying health insurance giving them more power. Money is power the more of it the government takes from you the less power you have. The more government dictates what you must do the less power you have.

And liberals are accused of living in a dream world...WOW, talk about believing in an ignorant Utopia. So we live in a fairy tale benign world where the only wolves are government?

Never said any of that. Please attempt to have an honest discussion. Sure there are dangers to one's life other than government but the fact remains when government takes your money (taxes) and/or tells you what you must do with it (buy health insurance). You are less free

Your signature belies your post. For simps like you, there IS NO dangers to one's life other than government.

Bern80, a charter member of the totally clueless pea brain coalition...followers of Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I am not going to watch you chase your tail, so as the only adult in the room, I will take over.

YOU said: "No matter how great a system they put in place it falls to the people of later generations to stay true to it and keep it alive. Since 1913, Progressives have been dismantling the system and we're to blame for letting them; not Franklin, not Adams, not Jefferson, we're to blame."

EXPLAIN, in detail...

I wrote about this in detail, but never posted it so here's the Readers Digest version.

Since 1913 Progressives have launched a full scale, unrelenting counteroffensive against our Founding Principles.

In 1913, they followed the rulebook, they Amended the Constitution and gave us a Central Bank (aka: Federal Reserve) and totally castrated the States as meaningful participants in the political process with respect to controlling the federal government via the 16th Amendment. This was the States Stalingrad, in the future, they would only meet the growing federal government as a defeated and shrinking adversary.

In the 30's, emboldened by their victory and now partners with the Central Bank in decimating the US economy, Progressives tossed the rulebook aside to continue to foist their agenda upon the people. The New Deal was a de facto rewrite of our Founding principles this time without a formal Amendment process. Once Rome, the Federal government was morphing into the Vatican and a once free people were turned back into subjects.

Sorry Frank, but your 'Readers Digest version' doesn't cut it. It is just a pea brain's armchair version that simply allows you to state YOUR pea brained ideological dogma and then cut & run. You FAIL, quite miserably as usual.

If you are going to forward your belief that to save a drowning person you throw them a rock, you need to justify it. You need to explain what led to the Aldrich–Vreeland Act, the National Monetary Commission and the Federal Reserve Act. Then tell us what YOU would have done to remedy a major crisis like the Panic of 1907.

Then, please tell us how YOUR plans and remedies would have vaunted the US dollar to international currency vs the pound, franc and mark without the Federal Reserve Act.

I don't have a problem with an opinion that differs from mine, but I always have a problem when that opinion is not based on facts.

The REAL irony; were these issues and events occurring today, you would be siding with the Aldrich plan. It would have been just another version of the health care debate, where you would have sided with the private sector over a public plan.

The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including Aldrich bill. However, unlike the Aldrich plan which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave controlling interest to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, with a measure of autonomy to Reserve Banks which, for a period of time, were allowed to set their districts' own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the opposition to the proposed reserve system reversed itself, and came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the more populist leaning Democrats.
wiki

I wish there was a way to alert people when a reply is posted, I just saw this one. This is actually a good one Bfgrn and I can't do it justice before I go out.

Will reply tonight

 

[G.T.]

I wrote about this in detail, but never posted it so here's the Readers Digest version.

Since 1913 Progressives have launched a full scale, unrelenting counteroffensive against our Founding Principles.

In 1913, they followed the rulebook, they Amended the Constitution and gave us a Central Bank (aka: Federal Reserve) and totally castrated the States as meaningful participants in the political process with respect to controlling the federal government via the 16th Amendment. This was the States Stalingrad, in the future, they would only meet the growing federal government as a defeated and shrinking adversary.

In the 30's, emboldened by their victory and now partners with the Central Bank in decimating the US economy, Progressives tossed the rulebook aside to continue to foist their agenda upon the people. The New Deal was a de facto rewrite of our Founding principles this time without a formal Amendment process. Once Rome, the Federal government was morphing into the Vatican and a once free people were turned back into subjects.

Sorry Frank, but your 'Readers Digest version' doesn't cut it. It is just a pea brain's armchair version that simply allows you to state YOUR pea brained ideological dogma and then cut & run. You FAIL, quite miserably as usual.

If you are going to forward your belief that to save a drowning person you throw them a rock, you need to justify it. You need to explain what led to the Aldrich–Vreeland Act, the National Monetary Commission and the Federal Reserve Act. Then tell us what YOU would have done to remedy a major crisis like the Panic of 1907.

Then, please tell us how YOUR plans and remedies would have vaunted the US dollar to international currency vs the pound, franc and mark without the Federal Reserve Act.

I don't have a problem with an opinion that differs from mine, but I always have a problem when that opinion is not based on facts.

The REAL irony; were these issues and events occurring today, you would be siding with the Aldrich plan. It would have been just another version of the health care debate, where you would have sided with the private sector over a public plan.

The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including Aldrich bill. However, unlike the Aldrich plan which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave controlling interest to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, with a measure of autonomy to Reserve Banks which, for a period of time, were allowed to set their districts' own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the opposition to the proposed reserve system reversed itself, and came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the more populist leaning Democrats.
wiki

I wish there was a way to alert people when a reply is posted, I just saw this one. This is actually a good one Bfgrn and I can't do it justice before I go out.

Will reply tonight

Any thread I reply to automatically "subscribes" to me, and then in my user CP their link turns bold again any time someone posts in the thread(s).

 

[editec]

We need a new constitution.

We broke the last one.

We got pretty good use out of it for a while, though, didn't we?

All in all, I'd say we got our money's worth out of it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

con·sti·tu·tion
   /ˌkɒnstɪˈtuʃən, -ˈtyu-/ Show Spelled[kon-sti-too-shuhn, -tyoo-
–noun
1. the way in which a thing is composed or made up; makeup; composition: the chemical constitution of the cleanser. Constitution | Define Constitution at Dictionary.com

The Founders did not pick the word out of the air as they were drafting the document. They had deliberately called the document what it was: a constitution, a description of the nature, composition form and function of the new government. The very word itself has a meaning that has been lost and obfuscated.

Our Founder knew EXACTLY what they were doing! They did not draft a living, breathing easily malleable document. They drafted a document that was very precise in what the new federal government was supposed to do -- very little.

Yet.....the present-day Son's Of Liberty have been doing everything-they-CAN to....you know....move a few words around....and, make OUR Constitution more "conservative"-friendly!!!!​

 

[midcan5]

You know that prior to FDR rewriting the constitution, there used to be Amendment process built into the document by the Founders, right?

LOL Our greatest president sure bothers you guys. Sorry, try as much as you like, you're not going to bring back the good old days, whatever that may mean in your ahistorical mind. LOL

Franklin D. Roosevelt - American Heritage Center, Inc.

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

[the rest in link above]

 

[xotoxi]

I used to think CrusaderFrank was brainwashed by the RW Media. Alas, you disabused me of this belief - a pea brain needs only a light rinse.

...a light rinse...

 

[Douger]

No, it was not an unconstitutional rewrite. And when you freakazoids dismantle part of what FDR accomplished, such as the Glass-Steagle act, the nation suffers, just as we are now.

The Constitution will continue to be interpreted in ways that cede more powers to the citizens, and less to the oligarchs. As much as you find this disturbing, we liberals find it to the interest of our nation. Just as we had to fight you concerning voting rights for all Americans, for Social Security, for government agencies such as the CDC, we will have to finish the fight for universal health care, for a distributed grid, that enables all citizens to be both producers and consumers. Yes, and income redistribution to even out the injustices of the present inequities in income.

And you will cry, mewl, puke, and squeal, and eventually be remembered with as much affection as Martin, Barton, and Fish.

The Constitution is the law of the land. What you liberals find in the best interest of your collective is not.

In other words, you will continue to dismantle the US Constitution in pursuit of your Nanny-state, socialist ideals.

Yo BrainDamage. Your hero, Dubya was the head dismantler of all time."It's just a goddamn piece of paper"
The suns almost up. Go raise your flag.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I used to think CrusaderFrank was brainwashed by the RW Media. Alas, you disabused me of this belief - a pea brain needs only a light rinse.

...a light rinse...

.....While CrusaderFrank is STILL pushin' for that good ol' timey Clorox-agenda.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZeQUxSjHwU]YouTube - Clorox commercial...Laundry timeline[/ame]​

 

[johnrocks]

Someone who interprets the Constitution strictly is going to piss off cons and libs on occasion since both ideologies ignore it depending on the issue. There may not be any mention of health care in it but find me where it says foreign aid to Israel or any other country and I'll kiss your ass and give you 5 hours to draw a crowd.