No government required

[Skull Pilot]

The left hates this undeniable reality - but here is yet another example that the government is not needed for anything outside of the 18 specific enumerated powers the states delegate to them.

In July, Microsoft announced a “Rural Airband Initiative” to invest in partnerships with telecommunications companies to bring broadband connectivity to 2 million more people in rural America by 2022.

Business will always build the infrastructure necessary (and more efficiently and at a lower cost) because it will ultimately end in more sales or lower cost for them.

Microsoft’s Plan to Expand Broadband Would Benefit Rural Americans

Ever heard of GPS? Hate to tell you, but it was developed by the government, and the government is also the ones that put in the infrastructure for it to be useful.

Incidentally, there was talk about not allowing civilians to use GPS, but then they changed their mind and released it to civilian companies.

Sorry.............but there are several examples where the government has developed things well ahead of civilian businesses.

Another one of them is the computer.

The military is generally 7 to 10 years ahead of civilian tech. As it should be. But don't forget that the military contracts private companies to develop those technologies. The nearly unlimited budgets don't hurt either

 

[Slade3200]

I do agree that the transition to Republican control was what the country wanted,

Not so fast. The numbers don't support the gerrymandered results.

I was speaking more to the Republican victories in state elections and congress. Trumps election was a fluke, lesser of two evils

I sort of agree with that. I do think it was the lesser of two evils. But I'm not sure you can call it a "fluke". After all, he blew threw the Republican primary like nothing we've ever seen. He should have been out of the race within the first 6 months based on everything we've ever known about campaigning. Instead, he just kept getting more and more popular.

It's comments like these that illustrates that the left still hasn't learned the "Trump Lesson". Donald Trump is not a result of the right. He's a direct result of the left. As long as the left continues with a bat-shit crazy platform of men are actually women, women are actually men, and properly identifying either results in criminal prosecution, the left will continue to ensure conservative victories. Especially when they refer to them as "flukes". The left has a priceless opportunity to learn from their ass-kicking over the past 8 years. You can't elect radicals like Barack Obama, refuse to accept biology, and attempt to control speech and still expect to win elections.

You make a good point about the primaries, Trump beat a huge field of Republican candidates so I will give him credit for that. Fluke probably wasn't the right word. I will say though that I didn't see a strong reliable leader in that large field of nominees.

As for Trumps victory, we had 8 years of Obama and Trump did a masterful job painting the state of the union as an utter disaster. He made some good points but it was all dressed up with gross hyperbole. Look at the state of the union in 2008 when Obama was first elected, there is no comparison. Yes there was slow growth during the Obama era, but that is far off from a disastrous economic crash that literally left people out on the street. Look at job growth through Obama. His last term out performed Trumps first year, did you know that? There has been a slow growing wave of economic prosperity that you can't deny Trump is capitalizing on. Yes he deserves credit for a variety of things, but so does Obama. I just wish we could have an honest conversation about politics. There is so much bias spin it is practically pointless.

I shed a pretty negative light on Trump because frankly I find him offensive, childish, egotistical and embarrassing as a person and as our countries leader. However, if we have a reasonable policy discussion I can acknowledge his strengths, he is not all bad. I'm curious, can you say the same about Obama?

 

[P@triot]

I shed a pretty negative light on Trump because frankly I find him offensive, childish, egotistical and embarrassing as a person and as our countries leader.

So do I. But who cares? As long as he’s restoring constitutional government, returning power to the states, cutting taxes, creating jobs, and putting America first, I couldn’t care less what he types in a Tweet.

I’m all about substance. Unfortunately, the left is all about superficial style.

 

[P@triot]

However, if we have a reasonable policy discussion I can acknowledge his strengths, he is not all bad. I'm curious, can you say the same about Obama?

If Obama had any policies that were constitutional and successful, I would gladly give him credit. But he really didn’t have any. He set an unprecedented record for Presidential Memorandums (while crowing about his “restraint” with Executive Orders - and his minions were blind and dumb enough to believe it), almost all of which were directed outside of the executive branch. He paid billions to Iran in a highly illegal ransom payment. He added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. He alienated allies like England and Israel while catering to enemies like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

About the only thing he did that impressed me was not closing Guantanamo Bay after campaigning on closing it within his first 90 days of office. With his ginormous ego, it was impressive that he put the security of the U.S. first (for once).

 

[Slade3200]

I shed a pretty negative light on Trump because frankly I find him offensive, childish, egotistical and embarrassing as a person and as our countries leader.

So do I. But who cares? As long as he’s restoring constitutional government, returning power to the states, cutting taxes, creating jobs, and putting America first, I couldn’t care less what he types in a Tweet.

I’m all about substance. Unfortunately, the left is all about superficial style.

The left uses that stuff to attack him but i'm sure they are also genuinely against much of what Trump is doing. I'm about 50/50, I see benefit in about half the actions being taken and the other half I wouldn't support. The real damage in what he is "saying" goes to the partisan division and pseudo civil war happening in our country, it is moving into dangerous territory and in my opinion it is a product of his ego and is completely unnecessary. There is a way to reach out and work with democrats on these issues or at least try. Insulting and dividing is only going to lead to a strong backlash when Dems ultimately take power... it is breaking our system even more than it is already broken.

 

[Slade3200]

However, if we have a reasonable policy discussion I can acknowledge his strengths, he is not all bad. I'm curious, can you say the same about Obama?

If Obama had any policies that were constitutional and successful, I would gladly give him credit. But he really didn’t have any. He set an unprecedented record for Presidential Memorandums (while crowing about his “restraint” with Executive Orders - and his minions were blind and dumb enough to believe it), almost all of which were directed outside of the executive branch. He paid billions to Iran in a highly illegal ransom payment. He added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. He alienated allies like England and Israel while catering to enemies like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

About the only thing he did that impressed me was not closing Guantanamo Bay after campaigning on closing it within his first 90 days of office. With his ginormous ego, it was impressive that he put the security of the U.S. first (for once).

Its easy to list out the grievances much harder to point out the successes of a political opponent. You see the left doing the same thing to Trump. You know if you are partisan or fair minded if you are up to the challenge of acknowledging the positives for your political opponents. They are real people that care about real people (for the most part) they aren't ALL bad.
I battle with you a lot on this board, sometimes you are a stubborn douchebag, as am I, and sometimes you present fair and intelligent arguments. I think it would be a good exercise if you could look through the hate and find a few things that Obama did that you could give kudos for. Its that type of perspective that we need more of in this country.

 

[ABikerSailor]

However, if we have a reasonable policy discussion I can acknowledge his strengths, he is not all bad. I'm curious, can you say the same about Obama?

If Obama had any policies that were constitutional and successful, I would gladly give him credit. But he really didn’t have any. He set an unprecedented record for Presidential Memorandums (while crowing about his “restraint” with Executive Orders - and his minions were blind and dumb enough to believe it), almost all of which were directed outside of the executive branch. He paid billions to Iran in a highly illegal ransom payment. He added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. He alienated allies like England and Israel while catering to enemies like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

About the only thing he did that impressed me was not closing Guantanamo Bay after campaigning on closing it within his first 90 days of office. With his ginormous ego, it was impressive that he put the security of the U.S. first (for once).

Its easy to list out the grievances much harder to point out the successes of a political opponent. You see the left doing the same thing to Trump. You know if you are partisan or fair minded if you are up to the challenge of acknowledging the positives for your political opponents. They are real people that care about real people (for the most part) they aren't ALL bad.
I battle with you a lot on this board, sometimes you are a stubborn douchebag, as am I, and sometimes you present fair and intelligent arguments. I think it would be a good exercise if you could look through the hate and find a few things that Obama did that you could give kudos for. Its that type of perspective that we need more of in this country.

You're right Slade. It would be helpful if people would look at the things that the various candidates do right instead of focusing only on what they do wrong.

Me? I personally despised Jr. as president, and thought he was nothing more than Cheney's puppet. However, when he did something decent or right, I gave him props for doing so.

Same with Trump. I despise him as a human being because he's such a con artist, but he is president, and when he does something right, then I will say that he did a good job.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything he's done that is helpful to this country. Our standing in the world has gone down significantly because of Trump and his policies. Yeah, he appointed a SC judge, but only after the GOP blocked Obama from nominating one for over a year. Trump didn't do that, the Republicans in Congress who blocked Obama did that.

As far as this tax bill? Get back to me after I file my taxes this year, because I might have a better idea. If you ask me in April of 2019, I will know if it works or not.

 

[Slade3200]

However, if we have a reasonable policy discussion I can acknowledge his strengths, he is not all bad. I'm curious, can you say the same about Obama?

If Obama had any policies that were constitutional and successful, I would gladly give him credit. But he really didn’t have any. He set an unprecedented record for Presidential Memorandums (while crowing about his “restraint” with Executive Orders - and his minions were blind and dumb enough to believe it), almost all of which were directed outside of the executive branch. He paid billions to Iran in a highly illegal ransom payment. He added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. He alienated allies like England and Israel while catering to enemies like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

About the only thing he did that impressed me was not closing Guantanamo Bay after campaigning on closing it within his first 90 days of office. With his ginormous ego, it was impressive that he put the security of the U.S. first (for once).

Its easy to list out the grievances much harder to point out the successes of a political opponent. You see the left doing the same thing to Trump. You know if you are partisan or fair minded if you are up to the challenge of acknowledging the positives for your political opponents. They are real people that care about real people (for the most part) they aren't ALL bad.
I battle with you a lot on this board, sometimes you are a stubborn douchebag, as am I, and sometimes you present fair and intelligent arguments. I think it would be a good exercise if you could look through the hate and find a few things that Obama did that you could give kudos for. Its that type of perspective that we need more of in this country.

You're right Slade. It would be helpful if people would look at the things that the various candidates do right instead of focusing only on what they do wrong.

Me? I personally despised Jr. as president, and thought he was nothing more than Cheney's puppet. However, when he did something decent or right, I gave him props for doing so.

Same with Trump. I despise him as a human being because he's such a con artist, but he is president, and when he does something right, then I will say that he did a good job.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything he's done that is helpful to this country. Our standing in the world has gone down significantly because of Trump and his policies. Yeah, he appointed a SC judge, but only after the GOP blocked Obama from nominating one for over a year. Trump didn't do that, the Republicans in Congress who blocked Obama did that.

As far as this tax bill? Get back to me after I file my taxes this year, because I might have a better idea. If you ask me in April of 2019, I will know if it works or not.

What I see as Trump's strong suit is in infrastructure and regulations. I think he is a little cut happy and has gone overboard in some areas but I also think and hope that he can do positive things with the rebuilding of our country. I liked that he simplified the process for building a highway and hope he can use his expertise to keep doing that for other government projects that involve construction.

But I agree with you about your concerns and think he is a humiliating figure to represent our country. Just gotta hold my breath for 3 more years and hope for a good quality candidate to oppose him next election. He shouldn't be very hard to beat if the right person runs.

 

[P@triot]

Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything he's done that is helpful to this country.

Clearly you only tune into MSNBC then. He has created over 1 million jobs. Brought businesses back to the U.S. Lowered taxes. Secured the border. Restored constitutional power to government. Renegotiated trade agreements in our favor. Eliminated Obama's highly illegal Executive Orders. Appointed an exceptional justice to the Supreme Court. And that was all by lunch on his first full day.

 

[P@triot]

Insulting and dividing is only going to lead to a strong backlash when Dems ultimately take power... it is breaking our system even more than it is already broken.

That’s all Barack Insane Obama did. He divided this nation 24x7 by class, race, gender, etc. It was ridiculous.

How about when he smugly stated “Republicans can come along for the ride - but they have to ride in the back”? Hardly reaching across the aisle to unite.

 

[Slade3200]

Insulting and dividing is only going to lead to a strong backlash when Dems ultimately take power... it is breaking our system even more than it is already broken.

That’s all Barack Insane Obama did. He divided this nation 24x7 by class, race, gender, etc. It was ridiculous.

How about when he smugly stated “Republicans can come along for the ride - but they have to ride in the back”? Hardly reaching across the aisle to unite.

That war started on day one when Republicans made it their mission to make Obama a one term president. Dems are now doing the same thing to trump that the Reps did to Obama. If we keep playing these tick for tat games we are never gonna make it out of the gutter. At some point we need a respectable leader to pull us out.

 

[bripat9643]

Since retirement was never delegated to the federal government by the states, they have absolutely no authority to create a retirement plan, stick a gun to the head of citizens, and force us into it. It doesn’t matter if it was “legislated through Congress”. It’s still 100% illegal/unconstitutional.

That would also prohibit the CDC (center for disease control) the EPA (environmental protection agency) the TVA (Tennassee valley authority) and a million other government agencies created to promote the general welfare.

Yes it would. So?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[P@triot]

Since retirement was never delegated to the federal government by the states, they have absolutely no authority to create a retirement plan, stick a gun to the head of citizens, and force us into it. It doesn’t matter if it was “legislated through Congress”. It’s still 100% illegal/unconstitutional.

That would also prohibit the CDC (center for disease control) the EPA (environmental protection agency) the TVA (Tennassee valley authority) and a million other government agencies created to promote the general welfare.

Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! I love it when it finally dawns on a lefty.

There is no power to “promote the general welfare”. If there were - we would have a federal government with unlimited power. All they would have to do is declare that X “promotes the general welfare” and they would be justified.

It’s the left’s idiotic attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. It’s tired. And it’s old. And it’s ridiculous.

 

[radical right]

There is no power to “promote the general welfare”. If there were - we would have a federal government with unlimited power. All they would have to do is declare that X “promotes the general welfare” and they would be justified..

It's how Nixon created the EPA.

 

[grainbely]

The left hates this undeniable reality - but here is yet another example that the government is not needed for anything outside of the 18 specific enumerated powers the states delegate to them.

In July, Microsoft announced a “Rural Airband Initiative” to invest in partnerships with telecommunications companies to bring broadband connectivity to 2 million more people in rural America by 2022.

Business will always build the infrastructure necessary (and more efficiently and at a lower cost) because it will ultimately end in more sales or lower cost for them.

Microsoft’s Plan to Expand Broadband Would Benefit Rural Americans

Um. Idk if you knew this but big oil, coal, chemical, livestock, etc., would happily poison the shit out of us and claim ignorance. Do you think this would be better without the government? Something has to impose rules.

Furthermore, trying to apply philosophical tenants directly as policy is going to fail every time. They are modeling tools, the real world is what they attempt to model. Not the other way around. The real world isn't to be bent to a modeling tool. Applying these tenants directly as policy fundamentally fails, since there will always be deeper currents of influence that are beyond our immediate comprehension. The point of a philosophical tenant is to create a starting point, then iteratively merge it with elements of policy we know work with the real world until there is a workable solution.

 

[radical right]

Um. Idk if you knew this but big oil, coal, chemical, livestock, etc., would happily poison the shit out of us and claim ignorance. Do you think this would be better without the government? Something has to impose rules.

Think of Enron. The business of business is to make as much money as possible, with only law or regulation limiting the schemes they employ. J.D. Rockefeller famously bought up every oil barrel to prevent his competition from getting their product to market

 

[P@triot]

There is no power to “promote the general welfare”. If there were - we would have a federal government with unlimited power. All they would have to do is declare that X “promotes the general welfare” and they would be justified..

It's how Nixon created the EPA.

And why President Trump should use his powers in the executive branch to eliminate that unconstitutional department in the executive branch.

(By the way - you might not want to point to Richard ******* Nixon if you want to make a point about something positive in your mind )

 

[P@triot]

Um. Idk if you knew this but big oil, coal, chemical, livestock, etc., would happily poison the shit out of us and claim ignorance. Do you think this would be better without the government? Something has to impose rules.

Um...IDK if you know this...but Adolf Hitler and the Nazis brutally murdered millions because they got to "impose the rules". So did Joseph Stalin. Benito Mussolini. Saddam Hussein. Vladimir Lenin. Let me know when you want me to stop - this could go on for a while.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The left hates this undeniable reality - but here is yet another example that the government is not needed for anything outside of the 18 specific enumerated powers the states delegate to them.

In July, Microsoft announced a “Rural Airband Initiative” to invest in partnerships with telecommunications companies to bring broadband connectivity to 2 million more people in rural America by 2022.

Business will always build the infrastructure necessary (and more efficiently and at a lower cost) because it will ultimately end in more sales or lower cost for them.

Microsoft’s Plan to Expand Broadband Would Benefit Rural Americans

Ever heard of GPS? Hate to tell you, but it was developed by the government, and the government is also the ones that put in the infrastructure for it to be useful.

Incidentally, there was talk about not allowing civilians to use GPS, but then they changed their mind and released it to civilian companies.

Sorry.............but there are several examples where the government has developed things well ahead of civilian businesses.

Another one of them is the computer.

Government may develop some tech but private industry is what advances technology and makes it readily available to the general public.

 

[P@triot]

Furthermore, trying to apply philosophical tenants directly as policy is going to fail every time. They are modeling tools, the real world is what they attempt to model. Not the other way around. The real world isn't to be bent to a modeling tool. Applying these tenants directly as policy fundamentally fails, since there will always be deeper currents of influence that are beyond our immediate comprehension. The point of a philosophical tenant is to create a starting point, then iteratively merge it with elements of policy we know work with the real world until there is a workable solution.

Furthermore...a "tenant" is someone who rents property. In your attempt to sound "smart", you have made yourself sound astoundingly stupid.

Now...to address your bizarre claims...your entire desperate nonsense here is trumped (no pun intended - honest) by the realization that we are a nation of laws. And the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which means your "iteratively merging of elements of policy" (God Almighty do you sound like a dill-hole) are illegal. If it's not constitutional, it's illegal. Even if it "works" in your mind, snowflake.