Do YOU Trust the Government?

[Foxfyre]

Hey people. I've suspected for a long time, given that he demonstrates quite good common sense outside of the political threads, that Jake is paid by somebody to derail threads like this. It just happens too often for me to come up with much of any other conclusion. And he knows just what buttons to push to accomplish it. So don't let him earn his money on this thread, okay?

And on topic:

How do you trust a government that passed a multi-trillion dollar health care bill that essentially gave government the power to strip away any of our rights re health care that it wants to take away? And if any one of them who voted on that bill actually read it before they voted on it, I failed to catch the name.

That's for starters.

There's much much more to mention.'

Have our best interests at heart? I don't think so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, why do you lie, because you know no such thing.

What I believe iis this: the government is more trustworthy than is the ultra right and libertarian loony conspiracy groups.

Do you think the 97% of the country who thinks you guys are not rational would ever let you be in charge?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, why do you lie, because you know no such thing.

What I believe iis this: the government is more trustworthy than is the ultra right and libertarian loony conspiracy groups.

Do you think the 97% of the country who thinks you guys are not rational would ever let you be in charge?

I didn't say I knew any such thing. I said I have long suspected and, based on the evidence, can't draw any other conclusion. That is not a lie. That is the gospel truth.

I think that 52% of the country will vote for whoever they are convinced will keep their free stuff coming and/or won't take away any advantage they currently get from the government. And I think there are few in government who tell us the truth about any of that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Based on the evidence then, I am in the middle and you are supporting libertarian lunacy.

I do agree that many who accept government welfare, whether individuals or groups or businesses, will want to keep the goodies coming.

 

[Yurt]

jake starkey is wrong again.

when will he ever get anything right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Yurt, you don't believe, I take it, "many who accept government welfare, whether individuals or groups or businesses, will want to keep the goodies coming"?

You believe the government and its recipients have pure hearts.

 

[tooAlive]

OK, Yurt, you don't believe, I take it, "many who accept government welfare, whether individuals or groups or businesses, will want to keep the goodies coming"?

You believe the government and its recipients have pure hearts.

Over 40,000 posts, roughly 30 a day for the last ~3 years, and all of them are the same nonsense.

Foxfyre is right; someone has to be paying you.

 

[Yurt]

OK, Yurt, you don't believe, I take it, "many who accept government welfare, whether individuals or groups or businesses, will want to keep the goodies coming"?

You believe the government and its recipients have pure hearts.

i believe you're always wrong. want to know more about my beliefs.

 

[dblack]

Hey people. I've suspected for a long time, given that he demonstrates quite good common sense outside of the political threads, that Jake is paid by somebody to derail threads like this. It just happens too often for me to come up with much of any other conclusion. And he knows just what buttons to push to accomplish it. So don't let him earn his money on this thread, okay?

It's hard to say. For certain personality types, 'trolling' is a hallowed tradition that predates any government attempts to manipulate (or even much awareness of) internet discussion boards. So I don't see a lot of point in trying to guess who the 'shills' are. And if they're posting substantive posts, I don't really care.

But when they are repeatedly little more than a nuisance, the best approach is always to ignore them. Granted, that's not always easy - they thrive on provoking - but it makes for cleaner discussion to just step around their messes.

 

[dblack]

Do You Trust The Government?

Constitutional case law and the courts render the question irrelevant.

The ‘government’ – which in essence is the will of the people – will function influenced and motivated by many things, both good and bad, and act accordingly.

When the ‘government’ acts in a manner offensive to the Constitution, the people will seek relief in the courts, and those laws and policies offensive to the Constitution will be invalidated.

That libertarians and many on the right have no faith in the judiciary is also irrelevant, considering the fact they’re motivated by ignorance, arrogance, and greed.

Not clear on why you claim lack of trust in government is irrelevant. Seems quite relevant to me. If there's enough of it, they'll be 'problems', right? Or is this just sort of a 'que sera sera' comment?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

No. There was nothing in my post to suggest conspiracy to the fact-oriented mind.

Admittedly, public education has failed the average mind by attempting to fill it with human potential mush instead of hard facts and critical thinking skills leading to good judgment, so there is a lot of that going on. Consider that some novel about the holy grail sold millions of copies and any number of people then publicly fantasized there might be something like that out there, when the reality is Agatha Christie's books contained less fantasy.

Fortunately misperceptions don't change the reality that independent lobbying and buying of public officials is not tantamount to a collective national conspiracy.

To believe corporations "conspired" to take over the nation one must believe corporations worked cooperatively to today's results. Evidence shows corporations took over America legally and in perfectly legal increments managed by completely independent entities whose only common goals are to create cheap labor and personal wealth. Hardly the basis for a national conspiracy.


To believe government was in on the conspiracy one must believe government workers like Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, Barney Frank and John Roberts worked - er, "conspired", with the heirs of Bebe Rebozo, Clark Clifford, Milton Friedman and Tip O'Neill. That seems a bigger fantasy than the idea the government can be trusted. The reality is far more prosaic: both major political parties evolved from basic political belief systems supported by local wards into money-grubbing lobbies for social value programs that damn the costs to America's backbone.

My trust in government is nil; it can't even keep roads safe any more, but nothing posted by me suggests corporations "conspired" to take over government or that government "conspired" to blow it as bad for America as government workers have done in every area of government influence.

Conspiracy would take planning skills nowhere in evidence in either government or corporate America.

 

[Oldguy]

American patriots don't defend the murderous communist government of Cuba and cite propaganda published by the official organs of that government to do it.

Only a commie would do a thing like that.

That's right. They only defend murderous, right-wing dictators like Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud and every two-bit, tin-horn banana republic dictator in Latin America.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Where's the HELL NO option?

 

[bripat9643]

American patriots don't defend the murderous communist government of Cuba and cite propaganda published by the official organs of that government to do it.

Only a commie would do a thing like that.

That's right. They only defend murderous, right-wing dictators like Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud and every two-bit, tin-horn banana republic dictator in Latin America.

No one defended Saddam Hussein. However, they were happy to watch him beat up on Iran. So were the Democrats. Barry Hussein prostrated himself before the House of Saud, and prior to Jimmy Carter Democrats also defended tin-horn banana republic dictator in Latin America. The alternative was letting the commies take over.

The bottom line is, only commies defend the governments of brutal communist dictators.

 

[Oldguy]

Un-Constitutional? How?



I have not said any such a thing.



Show me the case.




No it isn't.



I see a pattern here. You seem to think anything you don't like is either illegal or un-Constitutional. I'd like to see you prove it. (Your OPINION doesn't count.)

Good God you are ignorant as hell. A case in 1939 established that only weapons suitable and in common use by the military are protected by the 2nd. 3 cases since then have cited that case and Heller establishes that not only are those weapons protected one does not need to be in a militia to be protected by the second.

Good god you actually are claiming you have not seen the numerous cites on the Supreme Court cases? Live under a rock?

Try this link since you are ignorant as hell. Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

Your list is somewhat incomplete because it does not include District of Columbia vs Heller or McDonald vs Chicago, the two most recent Supreme Court rulings relating to guns. Between those two cases, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, preserved by the Constitution, and that 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well. In other words, the Court has ruled that neither the federal nor state governments can come and get your guns (Sorry, Obamaphobes).

However, the Court did NOT rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right which cannot be regulated. They say this in Heller:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:* For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Since Heller dealt only with the District of Columbia, a federal enclave and not a state, the question then arises whether or not the states can impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. In McDonald, they say yes:

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov- ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The point is that both the federal government, and the states, have the right to regulate firearms in just about any manner they chose SHORT OF A COMPLETE BAN. What those regulations will look like is subject to interpretation by the elected legislatures and the courts.

As the recent Federal Circuit Court ruling on the Chicago law prohibiting the carrying of handguns shows, the limits of gun control are still open to interpretation. However, that reasonable gun laws are Constitutional is beyond question at this point.

 

[Oldguy]

No one defended Saddam Hussein. However, they were happy to watch him beat up on Iran. So were the Democrats. Barry Hussein prostrated himself before the House of Saud, and prior to Jimmy Carter Democrats also defended tin-horn banana republic dictator in Latin America. The alternative was letting the commies take over.

The bottom line is, only commies defend the governments of brutal communist dictators.

So, you admit that defending brutal dictators so long as they're anti-Communist is OK? Thank goodness most American's don't agree with that any more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Yurt, you don't believe, I take it, "many who accept government welfare, whether individuals or groups or businesses, will want to keep the goodies coming"?

You believe the government and its recipients have pure hearts.

i believe you're always wrong. want to know more about my beliefs.

Your beliefs are rattled and scattered. That is why you can't defend them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is never consistent in his arguments, his logic is easily pulled apart, and he will lie in a heartbeat.

Understand that you are dealing with a sociopath, as are so many on the ultra political extremes of our society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good God you are ignorant as hell. A case in 1939 established that only weapons suitable and in common use by the military are protected by the 2nd. 3 cases since then have cited that case and Heller establishes that not only are those weapons protected one does not need to be in a militia to be protected by the second.

Good god you actually are claiming you have not seen the numerous cites on the Supreme Court cases? Live under a rock?

Try this link since you are ignorant as hell. Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

Your list is somewhat incomplete because it does not include District of Columbia vs Heller or McDonald vs Chicago, the two most recent Supreme Court rulings relating to guns. Between those two cases, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, preserved by the Constitution, and that 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well. In other words, the Court has ruled that neither the federal nor state governments can come and get your guns (Sorry, Obamaphobes).

However, the Court did NOT rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right which cannot be regulated. They say this in Heller:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:* For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Since Heller dealt only with the District of Columbia, a federal enclave and not a state, the question then arises whether or not the states can impose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. In McDonald, they say yes:

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov- ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The point is that both the federal government, and the states, have the right to regulate firearms in just about any manner they chose SHORT OF A COMPLETE BAN. What those regulations will look like is subject to interpretation by the elected legislatures and the courts.

As the recent Federal Circuit Court ruling on the Chicago law prohibiting the carrying of handguns shows, the limits of gun control are still open to interpretation. However, that reasonable gun laws are Constitutional is beyond question at this point.

So you missed the part about exactly what type of weapon is protected I take it? Further this provides ample evidence you knew these cases and were resorting to the usual tactics of a liberal demand evidence hoping none will be provided.

 

[Samson]

Are we all posting on USMB because we trust the government?

The poll seems to be sampling a slightly prejudice audience.