Do YOU Trust the Government?

[Freewill]

Since Nixon and Watergate, no.

Since Bush the first and Ruby Ridge, no.

Since Clinton and Waco, no.

Since Bush II and Obama operation Gun Walker/Fast and Furious, no.

Since Bush II and Obama and the partriot act, HELL NO.

Since Obama and the dropping of Predator Missiles on Americans, no.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's not clear to me that we ever defended any "brutal dictators." We may have given aid to some dictators, but the brutality is almost exclusively on the commie side of the ledger.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are consistent in your arguments, Fakey: consistently wrong and consistently idiotic.

But what would anyone expect from an incontinent, senile, commie, lying scumbag?

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Yes, I guess I did miss that. Can you show me?

Of course I'm familiar with most of those cases and, yes, demanding evidence is a debate tactic and always has been. It's a way to challenge your opponent and, frankly, the quickest and easiest way to kill a right wing thread. When I do that, I'm not hoping for nothing in return, but hoping that for once a statement is based upon fact, not opinion, which is the typical "evidence" offered up by Nutter's.

So far in this discussion, I'm still disappointed. You've offered up nothing but the interpretation of court rulings from an agenda-driven website. Personally, I prefer to read the court rulings themselves, instead of relying upon someone else to tell me what it says.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The government has often implemented policy or taken action that in retrospect proved to be a really bad idea. That is evident throughout our national history.

A bad idea however is not necessarily an evil idea when it was well intended. Sometimes they just don't figure out the consequences until they experience them. Such should inspire us to object to unnecessary government meddling, however well intended, and is a reason to distrust government competency, but not really a reason to distrust government motives.

But for some time now I more and more distrust their motives. I see an elected and appointed government and bureaucracy that is more and more motivated to be self serving and do what increases their own power, fame, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. And what is right for the people of America gets pushed aside. The government no longer CAREs about the real results of what it does.

We now have a government that suffers almost no consequences for bad decisions and is free to serve itself at our expense.

And I can't trust that.

 

[Oldguy]

It's not clear to me that we ever defended any "brutal dictators." We may have given aid to some dictators, but the brutality is almost exclusively on the commie side of the ledger.

Your knowledge of history really is pretty sub-par, isn't it?

You've never heard of Augusto Pinocet, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, King Abdullah? And that's just for starters.

 

[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.

You are consistent in your arguments, Fakey: consistently wrong and consistently idiotic.

But what would anyone expect from an incontinent, senile, commie, lying scumbag?

projection, little scumbag, projection

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It's not clear to me that we ever defended any "brutal dictators." We may have given aid to some dictators, but the brutality is almost exclusively on the commie side of the ledger.

Well there have certainly been ruthless and brutal dictators who were not communist. Saddam Hussein was no communist.

We certainly have assisted brutal dictators in the past but always for the purpose of offsetting those we considered to be greater danger. How many times has that photo of Donald Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein been posted on the internet? Thousands of times by now?

Aiding Iraq against a rising militant fanatical Iran deemed to be the most dangerous to the region's stability and a danger to the a primary source of the world's oil supply was during the Reagan Administration with the full support and funding from a mostly Democratically controlled Congress. But by midway into the Clinton administration, the Democrats were clamoring for Clinton to do something to rein in Saddam.

Did we trust the government during the Reagan administration? I don't think so recalling the Iran Contra scandal yet Reagan carried 51 of 52 states in his re-election bid. Did we trust the government during the Clinton administration? Nope. But we re-elected Clinton just the same. Did we trust the government during the Bush 43 administration? Not if you read his press. But we re-elected him.

And others have posted the charts showing how difficult it is to replace a senator or congressman once he/she has achieved incumbant status.

So does it matter whether we trust the government? Or does it only matter that we elect the government that we think will rock our boat the least?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre writes, "So does it matter whether we trust the government? Or does it only matter that we elect the government that we think will rock our boat the least?"

Anybody who trusts either a political or a philosophical faction solely is making an unwise choice, in my opinion.

I trust the constitutional, electoral process, while praying enough Americans care that we get good choices.

I don't think we have since 1996. If that is so, I think it is because most Americans care less about matters beyond the daily grind and how it effects them.

 

[boedicca]

No. I don't trust the government. That's the point of having Constitutional limitations on power.

All governments are, by the very nature of their power, untrustworthy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Yes, I guess I did miss that. Can you show me?

Of course I'm familiar with most of those cases and, yes, demanding evidence is a debate tactic and always has been. It's a way to challenge your opponent and, frankly, the quickest and easiest way to kill a right wing thread. When I do that, I'm not hoping for nothing in return, but hoping that for once a statement is based upon fact, not opinion, which is the typical "evidence" offered up by Nutter's.

So far in this discussion, I'm still disappointed. You've offered up nothing but the interpretation of court rulings from an agenda-driven website. Personally, I prefer to read the court rulings themselves, instead of relying upon someone else to tell me what it says.

Then read them you dumb ass. Miller clearly states that in order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be usable, in use or of common use by the military. And Miller is cited in the rest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Heller 1(F) opens Miller to further limitation in the future, if SCOTUS so decides.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. I don't trust the government. That's the point of having Constitutional limitations on power.

All governments are, by the very nature of their power, untrustworthy.

Which is why our Founders intended for the federal government to have no more power than it absolutely had to have to protect and defend our unalienable rights and knit the states into one cohesive nation. It was never intended to have any power over the choice of how we otherwise lived our lives whatever the consequences for those choices might be.

 

[dblack]

No. I don't trust the government. That's the point of having Constitutional limitations on power.

All governments are, by the very nature of their power, untrustworthy.

Which is why our Founders intended for the federal government to have no more power than it absolutely had to have to protect and defend our unalienable rights and knit the states into one cohesive nation. It was never intended to have any power over the choice of how we otherwise lived our lives whatever the consequences for those choices might be.

Agreed.

But I still think it's a mistake to frame the limited government debate as a question of trust. Even if I had absolute faith and trust in our leaders, I'd still want to see government limited in power and scope to only those functions where it is necessary and justified. Because I prefer to live in a society where voluntary interaction is the norm, and coercion the exception.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. I don't trust the government. That's the point of having Constitutional limitations on power.

All governments are, by the very nature of their power, untrustworthy.

Which is why our Founders intended for the federal government to have no more power than it absolutely had to have to protect and defend our unalienable rights and knit the states into one cohesive nation. It was never intended to have any power over the choice of how we otherwise lived our lives whatever the consequences for those choices might be.

Agreed.

But I still think it's a mistake to frame the limited government debate as a question of trust. Even if I had absolute faith and trust in our leaders, I'd still want to see government limited in power and scope to only those functions where it is necessary and justified. Because I prefer to live in a society where voluntary interaction is the norm, and coercion the exception.

But you see, that is where the issue of trust comes in. You KNOW that it is the M.O. of government to be coercive. And that is why Jefferson mistrusted government and sought to severely limit it. And I think ditto for you.

It IS a matter of trust.

 

[Samson]

Which is why our Founders intended for the federal government to have no more power than it absolutely had to have to protect and defend our unalienable rights and knit the states into one cohesive nation. It was never intended to have any power over the choice of how we otherwise lived our lives whatever the consequences for those choices might be.

Agreed.

But I still think it's a mistake to frame the limited government debate as a question of trust. Even if I had absolute faith and trust in our leaders, I'd still want to see government limited in power and scope to only those functions where it is necessary and justified. Because I prefer to live in a society where voluntary interaction is the norm, and coercion the exception.

But you see, that is where the issue of trust comes in. You KNOW that it is the M.O. of government to be coercive. And that is why Jefferson mistrusted government and sought to severely limit it. And I think ditto for you.

It IS a matter of trust.

I trust them to cover for themselves.

 

[Missourian]

Posed this same question in 2009.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/89598-do-you-trust-the-government.html

 

[courseofhistory]

This ought to be interesting... do you now and in foreseeable future trust the government to always do the right thing, always be working for the people, and never get too large or out of control, to never be considered oppressive and/or tyrannical?

The answers will be simple, yes, no or undecided.

I didn't vote because the choice I would pick isn't there. I trust the government in some ways and in others I don't particularly. it depends on the issue, who is heading the department or entity and a lot of other things. I certainly don't trust the government implicitly with no questions or objections.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Yes, I guess I did miss that. Can you show me?

Of course I'm familiar with most of those cases and, yes, demanding evidence is a debate tactic and always has been. It's a way to challenge your opponent and, frankly, the quickest and easiest way to kill a right wing thread. When I do that, I'm not hoping for nothing in return, but hoping that for once a statement is based upon fact, not opinion, which is the typical "evidence" offered up by Nutter's.

So far in this discussion, I'm still disappointed. You've offered up nothing but the interpretation of court rulings from an agenda-driven website. Personally, I prefer to read the court rulings themselves, instead of relying upon someone else to tell me what it says.

Then read them you dumb ass. Miller clearly states that in order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be usable, in use or of common use by the military. And Miller is cited in the rest.

Miller does not clearly say that. The comments in question were by way of explanation, not a part of the decision. In legal parlance, they're known as "dicta" and do not carry the weight of precedent.

"..Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. While dicta suggest the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service, dicta are not precedent. In other words, Miller did not adopt a theory of the Second Amendment guarantee, because it did not need one..."

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/gro...iberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

Miller was remanded to the district court for further action, but that action was never taken. Consequently, since the Supreme Court did not specifically rule on the 2nd Amendment, but rather on the legality of the taxing provisions of the National Firearm Act, it does not stand as a precedent in 2nd Amendment cases, though it is often cited in part in other cases.

In any case, Heller and McDonald taken together conclusively HAVE ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a collective/militia right, so anything you think you see in Miller is trumped. Unless, or until, the Court decides to revisit Heller or McDonald, the issue is settled: Government CANNOT come and get your guns, but government CAN impose reasonable regulations on those guns, not matter what kind they are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, I guess I did miss that. Can you show me?

Of course I'm familiar with most of those cases and, yes, demanding evidence is a debate tactic and always has been. It's a way to challenge your opponent and, frankly, the quickest and easiest way to kill a right wing thread. When I do that, I'm not hoping for nothing in return, but hoping that for once a statement is based upon fact, not opinion, which is the typical "evidence" offered up by Nutter's.

So far in this discussion, I'm still disappointed. You've offered up nothing but the interpretation of court rulings from an agenda-driven website. Personally, I prefer to read the court rulings themselves, instead of relying upon someone else to tell me what it says.

Then read them you dumb ass. Miller clearly states that in order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be usable, in use or of common use by the military. And Miller is cited in the rest.

Miller does not clearly say that. The comments in question were by way of explanation, not a part of the decision. In legal parlance, they're known as "dicta" and do not carry the weight of precedent.

"..Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. While dicta suggest the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service, dicta are not precedent. In other words, Miller did not adopt a theory of the Second Amendment guarantee, because it did not need one..."

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/gro...iberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

Miller was remanded to the district court for further action, but that action was never taken. Consequently, since the Supreme Court did not specifically rule on the 2nd Amendment, but rather on the legality of the taxing provisions of the National Firearm Act, it does not stand as a precedent in 2nd Amendment cases, though it is often cited in part in other cases.

In any case, Heller and McDonald taken together conclusively HAVE ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a collective/militia right, so anything you think you see in Miller is trumped. Unless, or until, the Court decides to revisit Heller or McDonald, the issue is settled: Government CANNOT come and get your guns, but government CAN impose reasonable regulations on those guns, not matter what kind they are.

You are an idiot. But thanks for proving it.