I'm for gutting the whole government system

The first step to healing is to quit hurting ourselves - i.e. STOP voting for Democrats and Republicans. That strategy is a proven failure.

I repeat voting no longer works. It hasn't worked for 150 years.

Don't you see how ridiculous your premise is?

If voting didn't work and hadn't worked for some 150 years or so (which oddly enough takes us back to the year Abraham Lincoln took office), at SOME point, people would have resorted to "other methods," wouldn't they?

But I guess the South DID resort to other methods, didn't they? In the name of States Rights (which just so happens to be a conservative mantra these days), the South decided to break away from the Union and launched an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter. The resulting conflagration ended up costing some 600,000 Americans their lives.

Are you suggesting that it might be time for a second bite at that apple?
 
The first step to healing is to quit hurting ourselves - i.e. STOP voting for Democrats and Republicans. That strategy is a proven failure.

I repeat voting no longer works. It hasn't worked for 150 years.

Don't you see how ridiculous your premise is?

If voting didn't work and hadn't worked for some 150 years or so (which oddly enough takes us back to the year Abraham Lincoln took office), at SOME point, people would have resorted to "other methods," wouldn't they?

But I guess the South DID resort to other methods, didn't they? In the name of States Rights (which just so happens to be a conservative mantra these days), the South decided to break away from the Union and launched an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter. The resulting conflagration ended up costing some 600,000 Americans their lives.

Are you suggesting that it might be time for a second bite at that apple?

You are hijacking a concept. Federalism was born under the respect for States Rights. States Rights are an integral part of Federalism.
 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-whole-government-system.html#post3693420

ARe you really?

Including the military?





Are you really shocked that the TP members sent to Congress got in line to further enmpower the state maintain control over the people, BigREB?

I'm not.

Just like I am not surprised that Obama has ALSO signed onto that law.

Welcome to my reality, citizen.

The sooner people like you realize that the game is a fix, and the fix isn't about left or right, the better.

If we need a metsphor to describe our nation it isn't left v right, or liber b con or R v D it is:

INSIDERS versus CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!

Your neighbors, however much you might disapprove of their lives personally, are NOT the people who are screwing YOU or your nation.

When things go bad the LEADERSHIP is ALWAYS responsible.

Not the people, not the hippies, or the welfare mothers or the gun owners, or the veterans, or the factory workers or the affluent or the rich, or any other of the scapegoat classes our masters keep telling us are the causes of the problems.

THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE DECISONS that lead us here are the guilty parties.

We know only SOME of their names.

They are mostly the PUPPETS, not the PUPPET MASTERS.

Follow the money, Reb.

As long as any kind of government exists, there will be insiders who are isolated from the citizenry.

It's true that leadership is always responsible when things go bad, but is that because of the leaders' malice, or because of their stupidity? I'm willing to bet it's usually the latter.

Joshua Molina? Really?

Why not? I'm hard pressed to find anyone who looks wonkier in a photo.
 
Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

That argument is irrefutable.

Actually it’s moot – and in fact it was refuted by Chief Justice Marshall nearly two centuries ago:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Decision and Rationale

Speaking for a unanimous (7-0) Court, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the Maryland argument. The decision centered on Maryland's claim that because the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, the States were sovereign. Marshall refuted this claim, saying that the Constitution was the instrument of the people, not the States. Therefore, the Court asserted the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over the States. The Court also emphasized the importance of national supremacy. Marshall stated that “…the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action….”

The Court also rejected Maryland's argument that the Constitution did not explicitly allow for a national bank. Marshall's argument rested on this simple point: “…we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.” In other words, the Constitution was meant to be an outline of basic ideas, easily understood by the general public, and open to interpretation. Marshall went on to argue that while the powers of government are limited, the “necessary and proper” clause was meant to enlarge the ability of Congress to carry out its enumerated powers. He wrote: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional…”

Turning to Maryland's action in imposing the tax, he observed that “…the power to tax involves the power to destroy…,” and on that basis, the Court ruled that Maryland did not have the power to destroy a duly constituted institution of the Federal Government.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What is a Democracy? 51 percent of the population infrnes on the rights of 49 percent.

So a Democracy is only good for limited issues? The majority of Americans do not support gay marriages. And the Majority of Americans view America as a Christian nation.

Which is why I’m often very thankful we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
 
Gutting the government will definitely make us feel better for a short-time. But as long as Democrats and Republicans remain our only political options, we can forget about anything changing or improving where our lives are concerned. Campaign reform has become a must. Elections aren't decided on the basis of which candidate has the best ideas and plans for America's future. Elections are won by the one with the most money to spend. Because only two-political-points of view are offered, the voter often decides for whom to vote based on the "lesser of two evil's".

The Democrats complain that nothing is being done when they are not in power. Yet have demonstrated a complete inability to accomplish anything important when they are. The Republicans, on the other hand, accomplish much for their special interest groups, the rich and big business. When they are not engaged in their favorite pastime cheating or lying to the the American taxpayer, they waste time and money on non-political pursuits. And they are able to do all this while creating as much dissension in Congress as possible.

These career politicians with their nobless oblige attitudes are running this nation into the ground with the American taxpayer following closely. When the dust settles, you can bet these miserable miscreants will still have their 100% medical coverage and an overly generous pension plan. Obviously these millionaires and multi-millionaires need these benefits more than the average American. Talk about being on the government tit - Congress sucks the most and the hardest IMHO.
 
Last edited:
As long as any kind of government exists, there will be insiders who are isolated from the citizenry.

It's true that leadership is always responsible when things go bad, but is that because of the leaders' malice, or because of their stupidity? I'm willing to bet it's usually the latter.

Joshua Molina? Really?

Why not? I'm hard pressed to find anyone who looks wonkier in a photo.

Good point; you've got a wonka saurus rex there.

Might I suggest....

joshamy.jpg


2 wonks for the price of one
 
Gutting the government will definitely make us feel better for a short-time. But as long as Democrats and Republicans remain our only political options, we can forget about anything changing or improving where our lives are concerned. Campaign reform has become a must. Elections aren't decided on the basis of which candidate has the best ideas and plans for America's future. Elections are won by the one with the most money to spend. Because only two-political-points of view are offered, the voter often decides for whom to vote based on the "lesser of two evil's".

The Democrats complain that nothing is being done when they are not in power. Yet have demonstrated a complete inability to accomplish anything important when they are. The Republicans, on the other hand, accomplish much for their special interest groups, the rich and big business. When they are not engaged in their favorite pastime cheating or lying to the the American taxpayer, they waste time and money on non-political pursuits. And they are able to do all this while creating as much dissension in Congress as possible.

These career politicians with their nobless oblige attitudes are running this nation into the ground with the American taxpayer following closely. When the dust settles, you can bet these miserable miscreants will still have their 100% medical coverage and an overly generous pension plan. Obviously these millionaires and multi-millionaires need these benefits more than the average American. Talk about being on the government tit - Congress sucks the most and the hardest IMHO.

Hey, most of the unchecked Social Spending lays on the Democratic side of the coin, unchecked Pentagon Spending leans Republican. None of this is Free Market.
 
Gutting the government will definitely make us feel better for a short-time. But as long as Democrats and Republicans remain our only political options, we can forget about anything changing or improving where our lives are concerned. Campaign reform has become a must. Elections aren't decided on the basis of which candidate has the best ideas and plans for America's future. Elections are won by the one with the most money to spend. Because only two-political-points of view are offered, the voter often decides for whom to vote based on the "lesser of two evil's".

The Democrats complain that nothing is being done when they are not in power. Yet have demonstrated a complete inability to accomplish anything important when they are. The Republicans, on the other hand, accomplish much for their special interest groups, the rich and big business. When they are not engaged in their favorite pastime cheating or lying to the the American taxpayer, they waste time and money on non-political pursuits. And they are able to do all this while creating as much dissension in Congress as possible.

These career politicians with their nobless oblige attitudes are running this nation into the ground with the American taxpayer following closely. When the dust settles, you can bet these miserable miscreants will still have their 100% medical coverage and an overly generous pension plan. Obviously these millionaires and multi-millionaires need these benefits more than the average American. Talk about being on the government tit - Congress sucks the most and the hardest IMHO.

Hey, most of the unchecked Social Spending lays on the Democratic side of the coin, unchecked Pentagon Spending leans Republican. None of this is Free Market.

Nor can it be. Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.
 
Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.

For instance?

Defense. Not cost-effective at all. Same with education.
And what would the free market do with the elderly and/or disabled who don't happen to have the ability to work or the means to support themselves? No profit in taking care of them, or even in euthanizing them.
 
All insults and opinions and not one shred of fact

Wrong again truthdon'tmattertoyou.

rdunce offered a vapid opinion unsupported by a hint of factual support and you, being a partisan hack dishonest poseur, said not one peep.

You probably don't even realize that what you just posted is essentially just an insult and an expression of your own (worthless and generally dishonest) "opinion," lacking one shred of fact.
 
Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.

For instance?

Defense. Not cost-effective at all. Same with education.
And what would the free market do with the elderly and/or disabled who don't happen to have the ability to work or the means to support themselves? No profit in taking care of them, or even in euthanizing them.

Yep lets make each parent pay for ALL of the education costs of their children on the free market.

How about roads? water/sewer systems?
Various civic ventures and parks?
 
Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.

For instance?

Defense. Not cost-effective at all. Same with education.
And what would the free market do with the elderly and/or disabled who don't happen to have the ability to work or the means to support themselves? No profit in taking care of them, or even in euthanizing them.

The organizing principle of the military is not usually associated with free enterprise. However, if the government declined to provide that necessity, you can bet your ass the States, the people and industry sure as hell would.

Before there was ever a public education system, people got educated. So your premise is pretty well self-refuting on that example, too. What we'd have would surely not be very similar to what we have now. It is also probably true thta education would be far removed from our roughly universal education. but the free market would undoubtedly supply it.

And the free market already provides for the care of the elderly and the retired. Absent government compulsion, the system would obviously be different, but private and free enterprise solutions would have risen to the surface long ago.

In effect, you are simply as wrong as you can be.
 
Nor can it be. Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.

This sort of conception of the free market baffles me. The 'free market' isn't any kind of cohesive agency. "It" doesn't "do" anything. The free market is just a bunch of people doing what they want.

It seems that what you're really saying is that there will always be people who need things that other people don't want to give them. I'm not rephrasing your statement to win a point, and I don't think it necessarily does that. I'm just looking for more clarity.

I think it's a mistake to pretend (regardless of which 'side' you're on) that a free market optimizes for any particular economic outcome. The 'invisible hand' business is an observation about how things can work under certain ideal conditions. But for me, the important thing about a free market, what makes it preferable to a command economy, isn't how it 'performs', it's the freedom it allows us. The free market, more than any kind of economic system i've yet heard of, maximizes our freedom to decide for ourselves how we want to live our lives. It doesn't promise us that our choices will be successful, but it does allow us to pursue them.
 
The free market maximizes for profit regardelss of impacts on society.
In a free market heroin and such would be available to anyone with the money to buy it.
Guns to felons. Drugs/alcohol to children, etc.
Child prostitution, slavery, etc.
Abortion on demand with no restrictions.
As you can see regulations are necessary.
 
Last edited:
The free market maximizes for profit regardelss of impacts on society.
In a free market heroin and such would be available to anyone with the money to buy it.
Guns to felons. Drugs/alcohol to children, etc.
Child prostitution, slavery, etc.
Abortion on demand with no restrictions.
As you can see regulations are necessary.

Sorry, but you're not making sense. A free market doesn't mean "no laws". It's not clear to me why you'd jump to such accusations. Laws against the sorts of heinous crimes you're citing aren't the kinds of "regulations" free market advocates oppose. Indeed, laws preventing violence, theft, coercion, etc. are the bedrock of a free market.
 
The free market maximizes for profit regardelss of impacts on society.
In a free market heroin and such would be available to anyone with the money to buy it.
Guns to felons. Drugs/alcohol to children, etc.
Child prostitution, slavery, etc.
Abortion on demand with no restrictions.
As you can see regulations are necessary.

Sorry, but you're not making sense. A free market doesn't mean "no laws". It's not clear to me why you'd jump to such accusations. Laws against the sorts of heinous crimes you're citing aren't the kinds of "regulations" free market advocates oppose. Indeed, laws preventing violence, theft, coercion, etc. are the bedrock of a free market.

Laws are regulations which restrict or eliminate some businesses.

And yes a totally free market means no laws or govt interference with business.
 
Nor can it be. Many things that the people need are things that the free market will never spend money on supplying.

This sort of conception of the free market baffles me. The 'free market' isn't any kind of cohesive agency. "It" doesn't "do" anything. The free market is just a bunch of people doing what they want.
A good and fitting definition of unorganized chaos and why America will never be able to supply the people's needs. You can't say it reacts to demand. You can only say if someone in the individual unorganized audience wants to fulfill a need, it may or may not happen.

It seems that what you're really saying is that there will always be people who need things that other people don't want to give them. I'm not rephrasing your statement to win a point, and I don't think it necessarily does that. I'm just looking for more clarity.
It maybe give them if we are talking a bridge like the I-35W bridge collapse, or it maybe a drug that cures cancer.

I think it's a mistake to pretend (regardless of which 'side' you're on) that a free market optimizes for any particular economic outcome. The 'invisible hand' business is an observation about how things can work under certain ideal conditions.
Well yes, anything unorganized and in daily chaos as the free market, it is a marvel to see it produce a favorable economic outcome in small areas of peoples needs.


But for me, the important thing about a free market, what makes it preferable to a command economy, isn't how it 'performs', it's the freedom it allows us. The free market, more than any kind of economic system i've yet heard of, maximizes our freedom to decide for ourselves how we want to live our lives. It doesn't promise us that our choices will be successful, but it does allow us to pursue them.

While you are free to make individual life choices, your choices are limited, while your pursuit is indeed unlimited.
 

Forum List

Back
Top