Obama Deception Video

[CDB]

Anyway, how the Constitution led to the current form centralized power that we now have really doesn't have anything to do with those who backed it, since not all the Federalists agreed on every single thing.

I disagree. Our current major parties disagree voluably on a lot of stuff, supposedly. But somehow or another, aside from freaks like Ron Paul, the legislation always seems to get through, with tons of riders and **** happening under cover, and then it 'goes to conference' and the real work gets done, and nothing happens but some legislation/regulations change slightly with others being created and/or expanded, and the end result is always an increase in power. You keep arguing it seems that there's this major disconnect between intent and action.

I'm saying two things. One, intent is irrelevant, as in the great Judaic tradition of actions trumping intent. Would you rather have a government and a constitution deeply committed to limiting government but which never seems to be able to do that, or a government made of people and a constitution that regardless of their varying intents, sticks to a few basic enumerated powers? And two, I think you need to entertain the possibility, and I'm of a virtual certainty, that you're wrong on their intent, as demonstrated by their actions, results, and subsequent developments.

Once again, you are obviously misreading my post. I was talking about the constitution allowing for checks and balances in order to prevent a centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy, like what we have today. Back then, under the U.S. Constitution, we did not have a centralized bureaucracy,

Yes we did. The constitution created it, and you have admitted as such. That you were happier with that level of government and thought it appropriate, our current one too over bearing, and the previous one too weak, is irrelevant. The constitution established our central federal government. It's ludicrous to argue that it didn't do and didn't intend to do what it was worded and intended to do, and actually did: establish a central government of expanded powers which didn't exist prior. I'm not misreading your posts, I am unconcerned with equivocations and justifications for your normative judgements about whether or not it was a good idea or necessary. What happened is what's at issue, and whether or not it was good or necessary has no bearing on what actually happened and what the intent was. Our current congressional dip****s are going to blow our health care system out of the water, and a decade from now it's going to cost much more, the quality and supply will be far less, and people will be pissed. And despite my cynic streak I doubt that's what all politicians who are advocating for this legislation want. But their intent will not change the reality of their results. And many intend for those results to occur. Unions will be very happy to push their health care costs on to the tax payers, and some in congress are knowingly helping to do just that. Lawyers will have a field day, some in congress know and are helping for that reason. Insurance companies will get a guaranteed revenue stream, some in congress are pushing for that very reason. And what gets passed will be by and large what they want, with a few scraps thrown to the opposition so they allow it through, even though they really wouldn't otherwise support it at all.

even though the Federal government was a bit more centralized and stronger. There is a difference between more centralized/stronger and an overgrown, centralization of power, like what we currently have.

That is a matter of opinion and there is no objective measure to determine the right amount of central government. Some people want more than we currently have, some less. Some think it's just right but should change its focus a little, etc. Once again you're saying the constitution did exactly what I say it did, but saying because it's 'worse' now that it was better then, and so it really didn't do what I said it did. Hogwash. A progression is a progression. If I'm on the 50 yard line of a football field and liberty is at one end and tyranny the other and my teams gets possession and we get to the 10 yard line and almost score liberty, and the oppossing team intercepts and gets back to the liberty 40, so what? It's still a progression towards tyranny. Sure we were ten yards closer to tyranny before and then almost got to the Liberty end zone before they took the ball back and went back to our 40. So what? It's still a specific progression from liberty to tyranny. That the net result is in our favor for a fleeting moment is irrelevant. And, as is the case with the government and the constitution, if there are simply no net gains of yardage toward liberty over time and all the plays end up with us a little closer to the tyranny end zone, you have to have your head in the sand to miss the facts that the liberty team ain't cutting it and their plays (the constitution according to you) suck.

The Constitution, if the government today actually followed it, would not have allowed them to grow so big and,

So what? If its purpose is to limit government and it is completely impotent to do so, it's irrelevant. You may as well give cops a piece of tissue paper as a chest protector and then complain when they get shot and killed that the tissue paper was supposed to stop the bullet, and if the bullet had only realized it was supposed to stop at the tissue paper, our cops would still be alive...

It is not just another piece of legislation.

Why, because you say so? There are plenty of legislative acts which themselves are unique. So what?

Lew Rockwell is just giving his opinion at the end of the day. It's just that: an opinion. Our founders wanted a stronger, BUT limited government, that is why we only have three main branches of government under the U.S. Constitution, not six or nine.

I never said he was giving anything but. However Hoppe has done the research. If you want to limit government, you don't expand it, centralize it, and give it explicit powers which were at best implied previously. Plain and simple. The 'limitations' they wanted were no different than the riders on current bills, and were totally ineffective. Proof your argument is off base is the exact same argument could be made now, that our level of government now is 'just right', that the constitution has been stretched to just the amount that was intended, depending on which of the framers you poll, and that anything less is too little and anything more is too much. It's all relative and as such, not really useful. In reality the government either does or doesn't exist, does or does not have the powers, the constitution does or does not limit it, and the government is either stable in its scope of power, progressing or retracting. The federal government didn't exist, the constitution framed it, its ratification brought it into power and in many ways vested it with powers beyond that exercised by the crown, just not as innovative. It is nothing more than a power grab, plain and simple. Whether or not you or I think it was reasonable then, now, or somewhere along the line, or needs even more power, isn't the issue.

The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

If the constitution says they can't, and they do it anyway, then by definition it doesn't limit their power. If it limited their power, it wouldn't have happened. In reality it is a piece of paper, constructed upon and ignored at will, and so largely irrelevant except as an historical example of what was considered an acceptable scope of government power at the time, and what its proponents had to sacrifice to get it through. As such it's no more limiting or powerful than any other piece of legislation, and the 'limitations', some of which by our standards were completely ignored almost right off the bat, are merely the record of what the most powerful special interests of the time, including the people, simply wouldn't tolerate at any level. But what the people will or will not tolerate is not fixed, nor is what they desire, what they think is acceptable.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I forgot about this thread in the middle of my recent move... I'll need to come back and catch up since there seems to have been a massive battle of quote-fu going on.

CDB- I still haven't looked up anything to date but I did just read your follow up reply and have to agree with you on the point of Obama and relevance.

 

[bi0hazurd]

LOL Iclicked cuz i thought it said obama DECEPTICON video

 

[CDB]

LOL Iclicked cuz i thought it said obama DECEPTICON video

That's what I thought originally. I thought he was going to turn into a Mack truck or something and plow through an APAC meeting.

 

[Bass Master]

According to who? You? Me? Historians? Libertarians? Totalitatarians? The argument here isn't whether you think the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, that's a normative opinion for another thread, I say it's bunk and we can discuss that later if you want.

Wrong. Do not try to twist things again just because you are wrong. No one said the argument was about whether the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, but my answer to your rebuttal about the constitution representing a "much stronger central government" was supposed to differentiate between a stronger government and a centralized, out of control bureaucracy with no checks and balances. This answer was appropriate because one of your points was that the constitution itself did not protect our freedoms because it led to a stronger, more centralized form of government. The orginal argument was about the constitution being responsible for todays centralized form of government - as in how it led to todays centralization of power - and what it was written for. Please read your earlier post:

Constitutions do not restrain government nor protect individual liberty. Their effect is to centralize power and judgement of the proper exercise of power, and eventually lead to a destruction of freedom and liberty.

As you can see, you basically said the constitution was responsible for todays centralization of power and that it destroyed "freedom and liberty." So what I said about it making a stronger central government, but not a centralized power with no checks and balances does apply. By the way, freedom and liberty is pretty much the same thing.

The argument is over what the constitution did and didn't do, currently does and doesn't do, and what it was originally meant to do.

Again, the orginal argument was over 1.how the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power and 2. what it was meant to do, not what the constitution did and didn't do, because that is too broad of a statement, given the specific subject that we have been discussing.

It did not limit exsting government powers; it expanded them, codified them, and centralized them.

Once again, making unfounded claims. I will ask you again, if the U.S. Constitution lead to todays centralization of power, as you have said many times, then through what mechanisms did this occur? Which constitutional mechanisms were responsible? Do not just make claims without saying how and listing the mechanisms involved.

It does not currently limit government in any way shape or form; it does through construction give justification for any and every expansion of power by those who still see fit to even look for constitutional authority before doing something, and by the neglect of those who do not see fit to look for that authority, it holds no authority and imposes no limitations at all on them.

As usual, you are obviously wrong. The U.S. Constitution itself does limit government. I have already listed one constitutional mechanism that helped limit government, to a certain degree: legal tender. The Constitution only allowing for three main branches of the federal government also helps limit government. The Bill of Rights also limits government, to a certain degree. And there is also the Supreme Court (Judicial branch), which interprets the laws, declaring laws constitutional and unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court needs to do a better job in that area today. But the original system itself that was set up by the constitution limits government, to a certain point. The only way the federal government can grow larger and become more tyrannical is by breaking the laws that are outlined in the constitution. We know this obvious fact because the track record of constitutional laws the federal government has broken grows larger when it grows larger and becomes more centralized, therefore we can say this is a direct result of the government breaking it's own laws, not the constitution itself. As I said earlier, no constitution can stop a government from becoming tyrannical if the entire body of the government itself has a common agenda and the people do not hold them accountable. Laws only hold people accountable for their own actions when there is a force holding them accountable to those laws by enforcing them. To say that isn't the case would be like saying Police officers don't have to physically enforce their state laws because those laws are already established on paper, etc.

It was not meant to limit government, ever; it was meant to establish and delegate to a central government powers previously vested in a King through tradition, it codified what was presumed, created offices that did not previously exist, provided for the exercise of powers that did not previously exist, and was only 'limited' by the scruples of those few who were able to mobilize some objection to it.

Once again, this is your opinion, not a historical fact. The Constitution was established because, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the government was an ineffective, weak government, especially when it came to foreign polices, military, and commerce issues. We therefore needed something with a better overall system of governance that had a more solid foundation to it while, at the same time, not allowing for an over-centralization of power with no checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution provided that.

The limitations, the checks and balances you seem so intent on, were irrelevant to the people pushing it, and were only regarded and were in fact only the concessions made to the few objectors who had enough time and resources available to oppose it.

Not true. The Constitution, before it had the Bill of Rights added, still had checks and balances, but not to the degree that it did before they added those 10 amendments.

You can't say you want to limit something when your overall goal is to establish that very thing. It's contradictory. Either you do or you don't want it.

No, because I want limited government - as in no bigger than what the constitution provides for, therefore what I am saying is not contradictory. Once again, twisting things.
The centralization of todays government is not authorized by the constitution. For example, article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in school curricula and to take the teaching rights out of the hands of parents like they do today. That's just one good example. Again, nothing is contradictory about what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about.

The constitution did not limit the federal government, it was used to establish that very government by the very same people who had no problem with Britain's powers per se, but who just wanted to be the masters of those powers rather than subjected to them.

Another personal opinion. The constitution itself does limit the federal government past the point that is naturally allowed, as I have already outlined above by using many different examples.

The limitations, checks and balances 'built into it' are no different than the politically correct addendums that get added on to any bill that currently goes through congress in order to get votes from this congressman or that one, or this group of them or that one.

Okay then. So those added onto The Patriot Act are no different than those in the checks and balances provided by U.S. Constitution? That's a stupid and absurd statement.

If congress were to get a bill going to give tax breaks for health insurance purchases, thats the bill and the idea and the intent. Say the Republicrats are pushing it, their intent is to let people reduce their taxable income by the amount they pay for insurance. That's it. The Demopublicans see it and want to stick on some riders that say only so long as the insurance companies have a certain amount of this or that type of person working there, or some other PC gobbledeegook. The Republicrats don't agree necessarily, but also don't give enough of a **** to oppose the idea, so it's tacked on to the bill so it encounters less resistance and better chance of passing.

That is because congress is out of control today. They do not follow the constituion. Irrelevant

In the same way the supposed government limitations in the constitution (enumerated and divided powers, different branches, bill of rights, etc.), were just the riders the pushers of the constitution had to include to silence dissent.

Enough with your crazy conspiracy theories. This is not a historical fact.

And even that wasn't enough, there were still bribes and political maneuvering aplenty before it could get ratified. The only reason they are there is because enough people opposed the idea itself to raise enough of a furor to get some riders attached. The intent and goal of the proponents was to establish a central government that had not existed previously, and to give it powers no such government had exercised previously.

A constitution was in the process of being denied or established, therefore there was no real legal authority in that area not allowing certain politicians to do whatever they had to do, to a certain degree, in order to get it passed. Today, however, we have a constitution of laws established and for politicians to ignore or violate those laws is unlawful, therefore what you say by using that analogy is once again irrelevant. Lobbyists, for example, come between the wishes of the people and their representatives who, under the constitution, are supposed to represent them, not various money/financial interests, therefore that is corruption of government (which stems from breaking the constitution) rather than the constitution allowing it. The intent and goal of the proponents of the constitution was to establish a central government with checks and balances so that the union can become a free country in which it governs itself. I hate to burst your bubble, but there was no sinister conspiracy to create an over-centralized, fascist empire, etc., between our founders.

Sure I can. Most if not all of our nanny state is based on the general welfare clause and the inter state commerce clause. Had the constitution not existed, those justifications would simply not exist.

Not true. What parts of the U.S. Constitution specifically allow for a nanny state? Stick to facts, not unfounded opinions.

The parts of it that aren't ostensibly based on the constitution can't be blamed on the constitution, but it obviously also didn't serve any purpose in terms of limiting or stopping those parts of the nanny state either.

That's because the government is abusing their powers. No constitution can stop a country from having a fascist form of government if the people do not stop it by using the laws outlined in their constitution. The same rule applies here. If people do not hold the government acountable for the laws it breaks, then the constitution itself will not stop it from becoming fascist. This is why I said the constitution was just a guideline, nothing more, really. But I am for allowing amendments to the constitution that better safeguard our freedoms and do not allow this to happen so easily. No one ever said the constitution was a perfect holy document. It's a start. We can make it better with amendments that, like I said, safeguard our freedoms and specifically limit government, but that would take a country of sheep to wake up, which I question.

 

[Bass Master]

In other words no one gave a damn about the enumerated powers, checks and balances, original understanding and/or meaning, and just did what they wanted to anyway. The constitution doesn't carry blame for those parts, but they do serve as an example of the complete ineffectiveness of a written constitution in restraining government.

Once again, when a government as a whole becomes fascist, NO constitution can stop this from happening, unless the people use it as a guideline and stop it from happening. The people are to blame here, as they are in almost every fascist form of government.

And you have cited... what exactly? You have stated the constitution didn't provide for the centralization of power while at the same time admitting it provided for the establishment of a central government which previously did not exist and explicitly gave it powers which the recently over thrown government had presumed but hadn't codified.

No, I said the constitution didn't lead todays centralization of power (because our government has never been this overgrown, this centralized under the constitution before), although it did provide for a stronger, more effective, more centralized federal government. There is a difference between mroe centralized and over-centralized. The centralization of our current government cannot be compared to that under the constitution when the government actually did follow it.

Which is, well, confused to say the least. You try and excuse that by saying it was a 'necessary thing', which is arguable and a matter of extreme opinion, and does not in any way change the facts of the issue.

No confusion, you are just not reading my post properly. And your post is full of extreme opinion also, so do not preach to me about that.

There was no central government, then there was. There was no power to tax, then there was. There was no president, no congress, no cabinent, no judiciary, then there was.

There was a congress of confederation before the constitution, or are you talking about way before that? If the latter is right, then that's what happens in the evolution of every country/government. There is no army, no president/king, no government, then there is. So what's your point? Are you saying no government/anarchism is the solution?

Just because you think it was a good idea and a dandy improvement and such doesn't change the fact that this is in fact what happened. I may shoot someone to stop them from committing a crime, so it's arguably a 'necessary' action. That doesn't change the fact that I did with regard to intent and action, shoot someone. So, as often happens in these arguments I notice, I'm pointing to the reality of what happened and saying that's what happened and likely what I think was intended. You're saying what happened didn't happen, and even though it did it was a good thing and here's your opinion of why it was a good thing. And I'm the theorist here?

No, all you have done so far is make unfounded statements and call them facts. Then you cite quack-pot theorists like Lew Rockwell and make it look like they're facts. I am stating the historical facts and you are denying them. You are saying the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power without stating the constitutional mechanisms that were 'supposedly' responsible for it.

Unless of course you want to argue that those pushing the constitution didn't want to establish a central government but did, I guess by accident or something?

No, that is not what I said. I guess you just cannot read. I said that they wanted to establish a central government, but not the overgrown, centralized beaurocracy that we have today, which is one of the few things that started this argument. The fact is, the framers of the constitution did not want todays centralized beaurocracy, therefore you cannot blame it on the constitution - especially since no constitutional mechanisms allow for this.

Like they were out running errands and when they were walking up their driveway to their door, they noticed that a central government followed them home. Got to keep it now, what if there's no one to feed it? So they let it in and oh, look, now we decided to keep it, we just sort of noticed that we have all these people around looking for positions of power in the central government. What a lucky find, that.

You are really making yourself look stupid, because I never said. You seem to forget that, once again, there is a difference between more centralized/stronger and over-centralized.

Because nothing is worse than adopting a central government and not being lucky enough to find some good and honest people to staff the newly available positions of authority.

That is because that's governments nature. This is why an alert, responsive, and educated public is essential for the servival of liberty. You seem to miss this part quite a bit in your posts.

Are you aware of he Civil War? The last states that tried that, well they lost I believe one out of every four of their male population at the end of their attempted secession, which ended with them still a part of the union.

Each state today is sovereign, to a certain degree. Governers have no trouble telling the Feds to back off over certain disputes all the time. The only problem is the state governments need to hold the federal government accountable for breaking it's own law and overriding state sovereignty. The civil war didn't have enough states backing the break-up. It was Union vs Confederates. It wasn't the same thing as having multiple states break away from the union from different parts of the United States. The Union states did not like the Confederate states and vice versa. There werent multiple states breaking off from the union and uniting in the movement themselves. It probably would have been a different outcome if (what were) multiple Union AND Confederate states broke off from the union together. Nevertheless, no state of any union is that sovereign where they can just break off, otherwise unions would consistently change and states would easily break off from their union over stupid disputes too.

Yeah the supreme court, which technically had the right to rule, said they had the right to secession. Guess what? The executive branch didn't give a ****, and the constitutional interpretation of the court, while correct, did not limit the executive's power.

This is because our government is becoming fascist and, if they don't ignore their own laws, they make them up along the way. Nevertheless, I am for amendments to our constitution that would be more effective at stopping this. But once again, that would mean a mass awakening and a revolution, in the sense that Americans would have to get active and demand it and so on. But I don't have much faith in that anymore....

And over a 100 years later most people celebrate that fact.

Yes they do - especially corrupt politicians and lobbyists.

You have to question the effectiveness of a document whose purported purpose is to limit the government in the face of several facts: the people in government by and large don't want their power limited; the people outside of government by and large don't want the power of government limited aside from a few Holy Cow issues that, as cows in India, are expected not to be messed with; and if all that's necessary to negate the limiting powers of a written constitution is to ignore it, well then that's kind of pathetic. Something with true power to do something can't simply be ignored on that issue, and if it can then it is powerless in and of itself.

Hmm, I never said the constitution was fullproof or perfect, otherwise I would not have said that it needed some amendments to really limit government and better safeguard our liberties. But yes, government doesn't want it's power limited because that's the nature of government. They always abuse their powers and grow bigger. This is why I said that it would take a mass awakening to change this, but, given the current situation, I don't think that will happen and if any kind of 'revolution' happens due to this economic situation, it will most likely be a somewhat violent one that could lead to another form of government that neither of us will like, since most Americans today are compartmentalized and do not see the big picture.

However there are tons of people who did not ignore it, those are the people who moved into positions of power when the new government was formed, and those who have served in those functions and the many created since over the years to those in power this very day, which by all measures has done nothing but grow. So maybe, just maybe, that was its true intent, and that is what its true power is: to create, centralize, and expand, government power.

Obviously, because, once again, that's governments nature.

When people tell you the function of X is to do Y, but it always seems to lead to Z in reality, and those self same people have a vested interest in your continued belief that the function of X is Y, maybe their real purpose is actually to accomplish Z. Theory has to prove its merit in reality. And reality says our government has always grown, always expanded, always centralized, and done so with and without constitutional support. So I think it's at least possible, more than likely in fact, that growth was the original intent with a sooth song of limitations to appease the few people who gave enough of a crap to maybe thing unlimited central government wasn't a great idea. The original pushers got most of what they wanted, and to date it doesn't seem like anyone has been denied to any great degree. And we're probably on the verge of losing the first and second ammendment for good at this point, as both parties seem hostile to both at root. Certainly Obama and Co. will have no problem limiting speech in various mediums, and will have plenty of precedent to go on with regard to regulation of the air waves and licensing of TV stations and such, speech codes and restrictions.

I don't think any of the framers of the constitution, even though they wanted a stronger central government, wanted a out of control, over-centralized, bureaucracy like what we have today - especially one with no checks and balances whatsoever. This is my point. But yes, we are on the verge of losing the rights that we already have under our constitution, which is very dangerous. After all, every fascist government has to disarm the public first. To lose the first and second ammendment, at this point, would surely mean that the candlelight of liberty (whats left of liberty) has officially burned out.

When did I say that? I said the constitution was a centralization and expansion of power and that was its intent. It was, and it was. The previous charters are relevant in that they were much looser unions and obviously, if people hadn't wanted the powers of the proto federal government centralized and expanded, they wouldn't have presented a new framework in the form of the constitution that did just that.

I never said you said that. I said "don't act". It seemed to that you were making it look like the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were somehow better. Maybe it was better in one sense, but it still had many flaws, one being a very weak government.

Let me explain something to you. Hamilton's ideals are ****. He spent half his life explaining why he didn't mean what he said in the other half. He was on board with the VA and KY resolutions of 1798 and spent his latter years explaing how he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently wrote, ditto with The Federalist Papers. So looking for consistency in Hamilton's positions is like looking for a live cat in a Chinese food restaurant. You're not going to find it. He was one of the main and most prolific authors of The Federalist Papers arguing in favor of the constitution, it is selective in the extreme not to mention intellectually dishonest to use his well known inconsistency in position to say he was against the constitution. He was for and against damn near everything depending on what portion of his life you choose to pick from. He probably disagreed with his choice of dinner for the night by the time he was ready for bed. Joseph Charles is one person who has commented on Hamilton's inconsistencies and chastized historians/biographers for glossing them over, as has Thomas E. Woods, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, and plenty of others.

Hammilton was a walking contradiction, but that does not matter to me. What matters is what he believed at that time, which is what was responsible for his actions. Some murderers say they've changed and do not believe in killing anymore. That doesn't put aside the fact that they still killed people. The fact is, at the time the constitution was established, Hammilton did not fully agree with it and would have written something completely different if it were up to him.

I say they do. You don't get to dictate the terms of the argument like Bill O'Reilly or something. If you want that type of debate, get yourself a TV show where you can decide what the reasonable terms of debate are and shout anyone down who offends your sensibilities or deviates from what you think is the acceptable opposition position.

I am not 'dictating the terms of the arguement.' We were going over the constitution, as in the specific laws that supposedly lead to todays centralization of power. Talking about the Federalist papers when I ask you what constitutional mechanisms were responsible for todays centralization of power is pretty much irrelevant to the questions asked. Don't be so defensive like Bill O'Reilly either.

And I have explained, more than adequately. I have yet to read an explanation of how the constitution both did and did not provide for the expansion, codification, and centralization of the government. That you think it was a good idea is irrelevant, it doesn't change what the intent of the constitution was, which was just that: the codification, expansion and centralization of power into a new federal governing body.

Again, I never said the constitution didn't provide for a stronger, more centralized federal government. I said it didn't lead to todays overgrown, centralization of power. Big difference. And the constitituion allowing for a stronger federal government being a bad thing is your opinion.

The limitations on government that are supposedly built in were only allowed in as appeasement as any other legislative modification or rider is done today, just to make sure it goes through. To suggest the constitution didn't expand and centralize power when that's exactly what it did and what the intent of its drafters was, is ridiculous.

Once again, I never said the constitution didn't provide for a stronger, more centralized federal government. I said it didn't lead to todays overgrown, centralization of power.

And it is responsible for our current nanny state....

That is your opinion. The constitution is not responsible for todays nanny state because it does not allow it, otherwise we already would of had a nanny state within the first 80 years of the constitutions history. The government not following the constitution and the failure of the people, along with the constitution not being more safeguarded with better amendments, is what has led to todays nanny state.

And it makes perfect sense that this would be the trend if you regard it as any other piece of legislation. Analogously, the health care bill that the Democrats end up pushing under Obama will be intended as a step towards full nationalization of the US health care system. That they can't do nationalization right away and get everything they want because of a need to appease some Republicans and some significant portion of the population doesn't mean their intent is anything else. Nor will anyone but the clueless be surprised when full on nationalization and a single payer system is eventually proposed and passed. That is unless of course the dollar collapses first and we're all living in yurts by the end of Democrat control, in which case the Republicans will push through some watered down version of the same thing if possible because at base it's what they want too, just slightly modified.

No, because that piece of legislation (the constitution) doesn't allow the government to take over health care - or will you say that the constitution provides for the nationalization of health care too and blame it on the document, rather than an out of control government? This is because we have a out of control congress/government that is not following the constitution. Nevertheless, every overblown government eventually has it's end and this will happen with the dollar sooner or later, since no paper money ever stands the test of time.


yyyy

 

[Bass Master]

You keep arguing it seems that there's this major disconnect between intent and action.

The argument didn't get started over intent and action, so I don't know where you pull that from.

Would you rather have a government and a constitution deeply committed to limiting government but which never seems to be able to do that, or a government made of people and a constitution that regardless of their varying intents, sticks to a few basic enumerated powers?

1. Both depend on the people to remain alertive and watchful and 2. that is pretty much impossible because it's governments nature to grow bigger and abuse it's power, so no government alone will just 'stick to a few basic enumerated powers.' This is why the people have to make sure the government is kept in check, in that respect. Governments only grow bigger and abuse their power and the people of that country fail to do their jobs. After all, freedom isn't free. It's a full time job.

And two, I think you need to entertain the possibility, and I'm of a virtual certainty, that you're wrong on their intent, as demonstrated by their actions, results, and subsequent developments.

Demonstrated by their actions? Their actions show that they wanted a stronger central government and a better foundation. I agree with this. Their actions or intent does not imply that they wanted a out of control, over-centralized government like what we have today.

Yes we did.

No, we did not have a centralized, out of control bureaucracy back during the very early years of our country, when the government actually followed the constitution. There was no DMV, no Dept. of Education, no IRS, etc.

The constitution created it, and you have admitted as such.

Putting words in my mouth now are we? I never said the constitution created todays centralized, out of control bureaucracy. Please show me where I said this.

That you were happier with that level of government and thought it appropriate, our current one too over bearing, and the previous one too weak, is irrelevant.

Okay, and your opinion about government under the early years of the constitution being too big and not like our constitutional form of government is also irrelevant. Again, practice what you preach.

The constitution established our central federal government. It's ludicrous to argue that it didn't do and didn't intend to do what it was worded and intended to do, and actually did: establish a central government of expanded powers which didn't exist prior.

Yes, it established our federal government, but that does not mean anything, as in that mechanism itself leading to todays centralization of power. The constitution established a limited form of central of government with checks and balances. The constitution says what the federal government can do. It does not permit it to do many of the things it is doing today, like getting involved with education or health care. So you cannot say it led to todays centrilzation of power and nanny state if you can't name the mechanisms of the constitution that supposedly allowed it.

I'm not misreading your posts, I am unconcerned with equivocations and justifications for your normative judgements about whether or not it was a good idea or necessary.

Yes, you are misreading them.

What happened is what's at issue, and whether or not it was good or necessary has no bearing on what actually happened and what the intent was. Our current congressional dip****s are going to blow our health care system out of the water, and a decade from now it's going to cost much more, the quality and supply will be far less, and people will be pissed. And despite my cynic streak I doubt that's what all politicians who are advocating for this legislation want. But their intent will not change the reality of their results. And many intend for those results to occur. Unions will be very happy to push their health care costs on to the tax payers, and some in congress are knowingly helping to do just that. Lawyers will have a field day, some in congress know and are helping for that reason. Insurance companies will get a guaranteed revenue stream, some in congress are pushing for that very reason. And what gets passed will be by and large what they want, with a few scraps thrown to the opposition so they allow it through, even though they really wouldn't otherwise support it at all.

Doesn't matter what their itnentions are. It's black or it's white. Intentions and actions don't matter when a law does not allow those actions to be exercised; the constitution does not allow government to run health care and whether they want to do that or not to our health care system still does not put aside the fact that it is unconstitutional. If they truly followed the constitution, they would understand what the federal government, etc., is allowed to do and only make up laws that do not violate those enumerated powers, etc.

That is a matter of opinion and there is no objective measure to determine the right amount of central government. Some people want more than we currently have, some less. Some think it's just right but should change its focus a little, etc.

No, this is not my opinion. I am talking about the amount of central government that the constitution allows for. It does not allow the government to run every area of health care, the economy, education, etc. When the federal government does these things, it's too big, by constitutional definition.

Once again you're saying the constitution did exactly what I say it did, but saying because it's 'worse' now that it was better then, and so it really didn't do what I said it did. Hogwash. A progression is a progression.

No, not hogwash. According to the model of government established by the constitution, there is a difference between too much and just enough (as in what the constitution allows). It allows for a stronegr, more centralized federal government, but not an overgrown, over-centralized federal government. There is a big difference and you can twist that anyway you want and go around it with words and theoretical jibberish, but that's the fact.

It's still a progression towards tyranny.

That's your opinion. Again, irrelevant.

Sure we were ten yards closer to tyranny before and then almost got to the Liberty end zone before they took the ball back and went back to our 40. So what? It's still a specific progression from liberty to tyranny.

Once again, the constituional being tyrannical is your opinion. Irrelevant. Stick to the facts.

So what? If its purpose is to limit government and it is completely impotent to do so, it's irrelevant. You may as well give cops a piece of tissue paper as a chest protector and then complain when they get shot and killed that the tissue paper was supposed to stop the bullet, and if the bullet had only realized it was supposed to stop at the tissue paper, our cops would still be alive...

No, because that chest protecter we call a bullet proof vest doesn't depend on anything else to stop that bullet other than it's own vest pad that is needed. The constitution, on the other hand, depends on a public that holds government accountible to the constitution because, as I have already said, it is a guideline, not something to ensure our freedoms while we, the people, do nothing to safeguard them. Freedom isn't given to us. This analogy doesn't even fit the right context.

Why, because you say so? There are plenty of legislative acts which themselves are unique. So what?

And vice versa. It's not just a piece of legislation because you say so.

If you want to limit government, you don't expand it, centralize it, and give it explicit powers which were at best implied previously. Plain and simple.

Once again, that is your opinion of what limited government should be.

The 'limitations' they wanted were no different than the riders on current bills, and were totally ineffective.

They weren't ineffective. Many of these limitations, like legal tender, are very clear, but, once again, whena government as a whole becomes tyrannical, no constitution will stop it because they have a common goal, an agenda. This is why it's the failure of the people that is at fault here, not the constitution. But you wouldn't like toadmit that, now would you?

Proof your argument is off base is the exact same argument could be made now, that our level of government now is 'just right', that the constitution has been stretched to just the amount that was intended, depending on which of the framers you poll, and that anything less is too little and anything more is too much.

No proof. Just nonsense I have debunked. No, because todays level of government is not constitutional, therefore, according to the law, you cannot say it is 'just right.' That is the proof your argument holds no weight.

It's all relative and as such, not really useful. In reality the government either does or doesn't exist, does or does not have the powers, the constitution does or does not limit it, and the government is either stable in its scope of power, progressing or retracting.

No, because, once again, the constitution is a guideline for government. The people have to hold government accountable to the laws in that guideline to truly limit government, since no document alone will prevent the rise of tyrannical governments.

The federal government didn't exist, the constitution framed it, its ratification brought it into power and in many ways vested it with powers beyond that exercised by the crown, just not as innovative.

So what if it created the federal government. The fact is, it was still given three branches, which are checks and balances via the system of seperation of powers, since each of the three branches have the authority to act on their own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, etc. So whether you like it or not, that is not a leap to tyranny nor is it more centralized than the British government. The only problem is that the people do not use the system (constitution) to hold the government accountable when it breaks it's own laws, etc. This then breeds dirty politicians. The constitution is dependent on the people the U.S. in order to work.

It is nothing more than a power grab, plain and simple. Whether or not you or I think it was reasonable then, now, or somewhere along the line, or needs even more power, isn't the issue.

Once again, just more opinionated nonsense. It was not a power grab. If it were a power grab, there would not be three main branches of the federal government, but just one governmental body, etc.

If the constitution says they can't, and they do it anyway, then by definition it doesn't limit their power.

I never said the constitution alone limits the governments power. I said that it needs the public to use the constitutional system to keep government in check and then it will limit their power.

If it limited their power, it wouldn't have happened.

You're wrong because, once again, once a government as a whole becomes tyrannical, they often have a common agenda, therefore there is no force restraining them. There is no force restraining them because the people do not use the system to hold them accountable.

In reality it is a piece of paper, constructed upon and ignored at will, and so largely irrelevant except as an historical example of what was considered an acceptable scope of government power at the time, and what its proponents had to sacrifice to get it through. As such it's no more limiting or powerful than any other piece of legislation, and the 'limitations', some of which by our standards were completely ignored almost right off the bat, are merely the record of what the most powerful special interests of the time, including the people, simply wouldn't tolerate at any level. But what the people will or will not tolerate is not fixed, nor is what they desire, what they think is acceptable.

The constitution was and still is being ignored because, once again, the people have failed to use the system that was given to them to keep them in check. The fact is, you're putting the blame on the constitution rather than the people.

 

[bi0hazurd]

lol obama is probably not a mac truck he transforms into a soda machine, or a urinal.

 

[CDB]

Wrong. Do not try to twist things again just because you are wrong. No one said the argument was about whether the constitution or a stronger central government was a good idea, but my answer to your rebuttal about the constitution representing a "much stronger central government" was supposed to differentiate between a stronger government and a centralized, out of control bureaucracy with no checks and balances.

Which is one, BS, and two, not what you said. You said the constitution was necessary because the prior situation was intolerable or not workable for some reason. Once more, a matter of opinion. As is your differentiation between a centralized bureacracy and what you think is an appropriate level of centralized government. Your bureacracy is someone else's 'just right' level of government, my 'just right' is someone else's anarchy, my 'just right' to an anarchist is their centralized bureacracy. Relativity works in physics, not here. By any objective measure the constitution created and vastly increased the powers of the central government. You have not refuted a single thing I have said, you've merely offerred post hoc justifications based on normative judgements about why the government formed by the ratification of the constitution was good and what we have now is bad.

As you can see, you basically said the constitution was responsible for todays centralization of power and that it destroyed "freedom and liberty." So what I said about it making a stronger central government, but not a centralized power with no checks and balances does apply. By the way, freedom and liberty is pretty much the same thing.

And it is. We don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendement, we have freedom of speech because the majority of people want it so it's allowed to continue. Should that change, the first ammendment will be turned into a new mad libs. Under both conservative and liberal administrations there have been attacks on the first ammendment. And so long as the enemies of speech present a constitutionally based argument for limiting speech, which they can, and so long as popular opinion is with them, freedom of speech will be thrown in the waste bin of history.

Arguable on the last regarding freedom and liberty. In a political sense liberty requires you respect the equal rights of others, so to a certain extent your 'freedom' in an absolute sense is cutrailed. Many people take freedom as an absolute, when as a practical/political matter it isn't. In other words, some people say that if you can't kill someone, you are not free. Technically true, practically BS.

Again, the orginal argument was over 1.how the constitution is responsible for todays centralization of power and 2. what it was meant to do, not what the constitution did and didn't do, because that is too broad of a statement, given the specific subject that we have been discussing.

And I have provided not only argument but links to others who have researched the issue and made the same claim. The constitution provided the basis for the central government to come into existence, nor did it serve to limit that government. Construction and neglect have allowed that central government to expand beyond all limits and expectations.

Once again, making unfounded claims. I will ask you again, if the U.S. Constitution lead to todays centralization of power, as you have said many times, then through what mechanisms did this occur? Which constitutional mechanisms were responsible? Do not just make claims without saying how and listing the mechanisms involved.

This is rich. You have provided nothing, cited nothing, now I have to provide and cite for you? The mechanisms have been clearly laid out: construction and neglect. Specific methods of construction have also been mentioned, the two most popular are the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Both also previously mentioned.

The constitution was and still is being ignored because, once again, the people have failed to use the system that was given to them to keep them in check. The fact is, you're putting the blame on the constitution rather than the people.

If the blame belongs on the people and it is their responsibility to limit the government, then the only function of a written constitution is to codify the government's power and serve as an excuse/justification for each power grab. And if the people don't want a limited government the constitution serves no end whatsoever because it can simply be ignored. By laying out the supposed limits of government it presupposes a governmental form and scope that will always please the people, frozen in time. But people change. Should they want more government, nothing need be done, because without their will the constitution doesn't limit the government on its own. However should they want less, the government can always use the constitution to justify its current powers and any others it wants to grab via construction. So in that respect it protects the states existence, not the people or their rights.

With all your equivocation these facts remain:

1) The constitution provided for the creation of a central government which previously didn't exist, which had explicit powers which previously hadn't even been implicit or assumed except by the King.

2) The constitution did not limit the expansion of government. Neither did the people. And the constitution has served via construction as the justification for many expansions of the government's powers. Interstate commerce has been used to justify controls on agriculture, drugs, education, etc.

3) The intent of the framers of the constitution was a more powerful central government. That they may not have wanted one as powerful as our current central government is unprovable and irrelevant anyway. Some likely didn't, some did. The relevant point is that the constitution was an attempt to assert legal power, not to limit it. If they had truly wanted to limit the central government the obvious choice is to not establish one.

4) If your argument that the constitution didn't provide for the expansion of the central government is correct, then it also did not and could not limit the government except to the extent that popular will backed those limitations.

5) If the popular will is in fact what limits the government, which isn't something I disagree with, then there should be no need for a constitution. To expand its powers the goverment need merely ignore it or construct upon it in response to the people. To limit the government's powers the people need not appeal to any document but merely assert themselves via popular demonstrations. In fact a document laying out the scope of government would become a hinderance because it would freeze forever in time the popular will of one group of people, nothing more, and provide some measure of official justification for governmental powers even if the people were against such powers.

So that leaves us still where my claims end; the constitution, any constitution, is a power grab. Limitations on government codified in the constitution are nothing but the momentary whims of the public and don't actually serve to limit the overall growth of the government so long as the people are willing to ignore them en masse. But, the document itself does serve as an official codification of power which both legitimizes the existence and ever increasing scope of the central government's powers.

 

[Bass Master]

Which is one, BS, and two, not what you said. You said the constitution was necessary because the prior situation was intolerable or not workable for some reason.

Yes, I did say that the constitution providing a stronger form of government was a good idea, but the arguement wasn't about that. There is a difference between adding your opinion into an arguement and then going completely off topic. Also, even though I added in that opinion, it was still on topic because you were saying the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was basically better, when, in reality, in was a complete failure. So, what you say is irrelevant.

Once more, a matter of opinion. As is your differentiation between a centralized bureacracy and what you think is an appropriate level of centralized government.

Wrong. Not a matter of opinion. I was arguing what the constitution, not I, allows as an appropriate level of government. The fact is, the constitution does not allow todays level of centralized government. That isn't my opinion.

Your bureacracy is someone else's 'just right' level of government, my 'just right' is someone else's anarchy, my 'just right' to an anarchist is their centralized bureacracy.

Yes, bureacracy may be someone else's perfect level of government, but it's not the constitutional level of government. Big difference.

By any objective measure the constitution created and vastly increased the powers of the central government.

Wrong. The federal government was still split up into three branches where each branch can act on it's own and even regulate other branches. This is not the kind of "centralization of power" that you speak of. Once again, the entire federal government is not compressed into one governmental body.

You have not refuted a single thing I have said, you've merely offerred post hoc justifications based on normative judgements about why the government formed by the ratification of the constitution was good and what we have now is bad.

I have refuted every single nonsensical word that has been uttered from your mouth. You continue to make your giant, unfounded claims without any real historical facts to back them up. For example, you continue to say the constitution led to tyranny and todays big government when you have not stated the constitutional mechanisms which were supposedly responsible for this and continue to ramble on about theoretical, conspiracy jibberish of how there was some pact between the framers of the constitution where they wanted todays nanny state and that it was a "power grab", especially since no constitutional mechanisms directly allow this.

And it is. We don't have freedom of speech because of the first ammendement, we have freedom of speech because the majority of people want it so it's allowed to continue.

No, it isn't. Well, obviously and ultimately we have freedom of speech because that is what people naturally want, but the 1st amendment, for example, was established to ensure this, since government, when they become tyrannical and out of control, will find any legal loophole they can to break a certain law and if it is not written down in plain words on paper, it is much easier to break.

Should that change, the first ammendment will be turned into a new mad libs. Under both conservative and liberal administrations there have been attacks on the first ammendment. And so long as the enemies of speech present a constitutionally based argument for limiting speech, which they can, and so long as popular opinion is with them, freedom of speech will be thrown in the waste bin of history.

Yes. And there have been attacks on the constitution ever since it was written and put into law, because, once again, governments nature is to grow bigger, become tyrannical, and grab power. If and when they do completely do away with the first or second amendment and are successful at doing so, it won't be because the constitution allowed it. It will be because the people allowed it because, according to the constitution, it is essential to have a watchful and alert public who will hold the government accountable to the constitution. On the other hand, if people are watchful and alert and hold the government accountable, then freedom of speech will not be done away with in that sense - but I don't have much faith in the majority of Americans doing this.

Arguable on the last regarding freedom and liberty. In a political sense liberty requires you respect the equal rights of others, so to a certain extent your 'freedom' in an absolute sense is cutrailed. Many people take freedom as an absolute, when as a practical/political matter it isn't. In other words, some people say that if you can't kill someone, you are not free. Technically true, practically BS.

No, that's like saying water being h20 is technically true, but is BS.

And I have provided not only argument but links to others who have researched the issue and made the same claim.

No, you did not argue the facts. You cited a bit of theoretical jibberish via a few links to a few opinionated individuals who are giving their opinions on what the constitution was written for, etc.

The constitution provided the basis for the central government to come into existence, nor did it serve to limit that government. Construction and neglect have allowed that central government to expand beyond all limits and expectations.

Wrong. Yes, the constitution did usher in a central government that was previously nonexistent, but whether you think that is a bad or good thing is a matter of opinion. The fact is, the constitution itself did limit the power of government by breaking it up into three main branches that can act on their own and even regulate the other branches, but, once again, when a government as a whole becomes tyrannical, then no constitutional mechanisms can restrain it because that government is looking to break all of those laws; there is no opposing force to restrain it by using those constitutional laws. It seems like this simple fact just keeps falling into deaf ears.

This is rich. You have provided nothing, cited nothing, now I have to provide and cite for you?

This either shows me that you cannot read, or are not reading my posts at all because I have provided examples. Let me quote myself with just one example:

The fact is, when you read and go over the U.S. Constitution, you will find that many of the Amendments put in place DO limit government. For example, under the U.S. Constitution, only silver and gold can be legal tender. That in itself restrains government because they cannot just create money out of thin air for their spending so that they can grow much larger and abuse their powers. But this has still happened. Why? Because the constitution says it's alright? No. Because 1. the government is abusing the constitution by disobeying it and ignoring it and 2. state governments and the American people are not holding them accountable for doing so. This creates an overgrown, centralized, tyrannical bureaucracy because they are not held accountable, NOT because the U.S. Constitution allows them to do so.

Indeed, this is rich.

The mechanisms have been clearly laid out: construction and neglect.

"Construction and neglect." Wrong again. A law that is put into power never physically changes unless that government modifies that law through various legal actions/mechanisms. If the latter doesn't happen, then that law cannot construct or neglect itself. Only the current government that is safeguarding that law can neglect it or break it, therefore what you said is officially moot. Furthermore, you have still not answered my question. "Construction and neglect" does not tell me what constitutional mechanisms directly allowed todays overgrown, centralized form of government. Here, let me talk to you on a 5th grader level: in other words, what laws or amendments directly allowed todays overgrown, centralization of government?

Specific methods of construction have also been mentioned, the two most popular are the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Both also previously mentioned.

The general welfare clause is not responsible for todays centralization of government. Yes, congress can collect taxes, etc., but ONLY within reason of LAW, which is only to the maximum constitutional limit of allowance, etc.

For example, Article 1, section 8, clause 1 states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

We know that this can only be done within reason of constitutional law because the constitution also states that deficit spending is unconstitutional/unlawful and that only gold and silver can be legal tender. So, yes, congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay debts, BUT, if they kept within the realms of what size of government the constitution allows for, congress would not be taxing us like they are now, especially if we still had sound money to limit government. So, once again, wrong. You have to compare article with article, etc. You cannot just use one or two parts of the constitution. So, once again, you have not produced any constitutional mechanisms that allowed todays centralization of power. I am still waiting. Funny how you also forgot "Taxation without representation." Congress is taxing future generations. Are you going to say that this is constitutional too? Please, don't even make me laugh. In fact, one of the BIGGEST mechanisms that has allowed for todays centralization of power is for the government to tax future generations, which is completely unconstitutional, therefore this unequivocally proves that the constitution itself did not allow for todays centralization of power. The government breaking its laws did.

And as for the Commerce Clause, that also is not responsible for todays centralization of power because this too, like every law outlined in the constitution, has to be in compliance with other laws that are outlined in the constitution and have to bee made within reason of constitutional law. The Commerce Clause is also amplified by the Necessary and Proper clause, which states that this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Once again. What is the government legally bound to? The constitution, therefore this can only be used within reason of constitutional law. In other words, even though the Commerce Clause is abused today, it is not allowed to be used in that way according to the constitution. Furthermore, in the end part of that clause, it says: "...or in any Department or Officer thereof...".
Are all of the departments we have today constitutional? No. The constitution does not allow the federal government to get involved in education (Dept. of Education) nor does it allow the DMV, so, if the government actually followed the constitution, this would apply to them and the Commerce Clause would not be abused.

 

[Bass Master]

If the blame belongs on the people and it is their responsibility to limit the government, then the only function of a written constitution is to codify the government's power and serve as an excuse/justification for each power grab.

No, not true. The constitution can only be used to keep government in check if there is a vocal and active opposition force within that government body to regulate itself according to the constitution, therefore, like I said earlier, if there is no "good" to fight "evil", then evil takes over and breaks it's own laws, etc. Every constitution needs good people in order to work. That would be like saying we don't need firemen to save people from burning buildings because we have fire trucks.

And if the people don't want a limited government the constitution serves no end whatsoever because it can simply be ignored.

Yes, but that is the case with every constitution. If a government as a whole becomes corrupt and has a common agenda, then there is no oppositional force to regulate or hold that government accountable. The constitution is a guideline that decent people use to hold government accountable and regulate it. The only problem is, we don't have enough decent people in government anymore, therefore it is not working. No constitution can physically keep government in check because decent people are needed to use it, just like no house blueprint can physically build a house because it needs carpenters in order to do so. This doesn't mean the bluprint is useless though. Why? Because that blueprint can guide those carpenters in the right direction and show them what kind of house to build and how to build that house the way it says it needs to be built. Your notion that the failure of a constitution is due to it's own construction or it's own existence, rather than the failure of the people, is absurd.

By laying out the supposed limits of government it presupposes a governmental form and scope that will always please the people, frozen in time. But people change. Should they want more government, nothing need be done, because without their will the constitution doesn't limit the government on its own. However should they want less, the government can always use the constitution to justify its current powers and any others it wants to grab via construction. So in that respect it protects the states existence, not the people or their rights.

No, because something that limits government to a certain level cannot legally allow government to grow beyond that level. The constitution does that, but, like I said earlier, the constitution, as with any constitution, needs an aware and educated public in order to work. Yes, people change, and if people want to add amendments to the constitution to make it better and more effective when it comes to safeguarding liberty, then they can do that. But people also become dumber and apathetic. Does this mean our laws should become tyrannical and apathetic to the wishes of those people? No. But those kind of laws are byproducts of apathetic, uncaring, greedy, corrupt politicians rather than a constitution.

With all your equivocation these facts remain:

Please do not call them facts. These are the opinions of some guy who read theoretical, conspiracy jibberish rather than actual history. No, let me revise that statement to my liking, since I have based my conclusions on facts, not nonsensical, opinionated jibberish:

With all your equivocation, these facts remain:

1) The constitution provided for the creation of a central government which previously didn't exist, which had explicit powers which previously hadn't even been implicit or assumed except by the King.

Wrong. The constitution enumerated these powers to a central government that was split into three branches, not one governmental body with a "their say only" policy.

2) The constitution did not limit the expansion of government. Neither did the people. And the constitution has served via construction as the justification for many expansions of the government's powers. Interstate commerce has been used to justify controls on agriculture, drugs, education, etc.

Wrong. The constitution itself legally restrains the expansion of government. The fact is, the constitution does not allow government to grow to todays level nor does it allow it to use paper money, which allows for this expansion, therefore you cannot say the constitution allows for the expansion of government beyond it's own natural constitutional limit when the two most used mechanisms for todays government expansion are unconstitutional: paper money/printing money and deficit spending.

3) The intent of the framers of the constitution was a more powerful central government. That they may not have wanted one as powerful as our current central government is unprovable and irrelevant anyway. Some likely didn't, some did.

Funny how you go from saying that the intent of the framers of the constitution was nothing more than a "power grab" to saying that it was a "more powerful central government." You are, once again, changing what you said. No one NEVER said that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to make a stronger central government. I said that in one of my earlier posts. This is a sure sign of someone who is obviously wrong on their "facts".

The relevant point is that the constitution was an attempt to assert legal power, not to limit it. If they had truly wanted to limit the central government the obvious choice is to not establish one.

Opinion, not fact. The historical fact is that the constitution was meant to limit government while providing for a stronger central government that can do it's job, but have checks and balances and not grow beyond it's natural constitutional limitations. That is the fact and your opinion - or maybe I should say conspiracy jibberish - that it was an attemt to assert legal power or was a "power grab" is just that: an opinon.

4) If your argument that the constitution didn't provide for the expansion of the central government is correct, then it also did not and could not limit the government except to the extent that popular will backed those limitations.

No constitution itself can obviously limit government if no one puts it to use. I already talked about this above using the analogy about carpenters, not house bluprints, building homes. That's like saying some document could have stopped Hitler from doing what he did. No, the people could have by maybe using that document, but ultimately it is up to the people to stop him.

5) If the popular will is in fact what limits the government, which isn't something I disagree with, then there should be no need for a constitution.

No, because 1. the constitution is a guideline and 2. even popular will needs a guideline to start from. Once again, you can't build a house without a house bluprint, even though you'd love to build one

To expand its powers the goverment need merely ignore it or construct upon it in response to the people.

The government, to a very large degree, already HAS already been ignoring what people want. Doesn't work, obviously.

To limit the government's powers the people need not appeal to any document but merely assert themselves via popular demonstrations.

"Popular demonstrations" are not as organized as written law. In order to limit governments power, popular demonstration/being politically active AND using a document to hold them accountable to, as a guideline, is needed. This is what the constitution requires.

In fact a document laying out the scope of government would become a hinderance because it would freeze forever in time the popular will of one group of people, nothing more, and provide some measure of official justification for governmental powers even if the people were against such powers.

No, because many of the basic principles and rights that are outlined in the constitution are principles/rights that never grow old, no matter how much society changes. What, you think that society will evolve to a point where they will never want or need freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or to shoot a gun? Of course not.

So that leaves us still where my claims end; the constitution, any constitution, is a power grab.

And that's just that: a claim.

Limitations on government codified in the constitution are nothing but the momentary whims of the public and don't actually serve to limit the overall growth of the government so long as the people are willing to ignore them en masse.

I don't entirely disagree with the latter part of this statement, but, as I have already showed above, the constitution was written to limit government, to a large degree, but, in practice or reality, does not limit government completely or indefinitely because 1. the failure of the public and 2. the government as a whole, with a common agenda, becoming tyrannical. An alert, watchful and educated public is essential for freedom and our framers of the constitution said this when they talked about the constitution in relation to it working or not politically.

But, the document itself does serve as an official codification of power which both legitimizes the existence and ever increasing scope of the central government's powers.

I have already debunked this nonsense and all you have done thus far is stick to your unfounded claims. The fact is, once again, the constittuion was written to and does limit government to a large degree, but, in reality, it has not been restraining the growth of government indefinitely because when a government, with a common agenda, becomes tyrannical, then there is no oppositional force to hold them accountable to the constitution. After all, Hitler broke many laws because the public would not hold him accountable. Laws don't enforce themselves, men do - otherwise we would not need the Police.

 

[CDB]

No, not true. The constitution can only be used to keep government in check if there is a vocal and active opposition force within that government body to regulate itself according to the constitution, therefore, like I said earlier, if there is no "good" to fight "evil", then evil takes over and breaks it's own laws, etc. Every constitution needs good people in order to work. That would be like saying we don't need firemen to save people from burning buildings because we have fire trucks.

And, please do tell, what kind of dip**** expects the government to ever truly regulate itself? If the constitution needs good people to work, then a constitutional republic is just as utopian an idea as all out socialism or free market anarchism. The government will not by nature fight to limit itself, it will, as I've said, only not go after those powers it deems irrelevant at any given time, and use those as bone sto throw to the population under the guise of 'limits'. If the government is the judge and jury in its own case on every issue, you don't have to be Einstein to realize it's going progressively vote itself more power even if it's staffed with nothing but good people.

Those people will always want to Do Something! about this or that issue, but are by nature cut off from the normal channels of information most of the rest of the planet takes for granted. If they screw up, they get more money and power. If a problem gets worse under them, they get more people and resources to use to fight it. If people disgree, they don't have to convince, they just fine, jail, and ultimately shoot them.

It is a matter of prediction that when the government transitions from privately (monarchy) to publically (social democracy) owned, the same issues of public ownership that make parks and other such resources go to **** will affect the government. People will overuse it and not maintain it. It will be seen as an opportunity to take but not to give. And while some few may put forward an effort to keep things straight, the bottom line reality is most people will simply respond to the incentive structure that's in place, which is to use the government to loot as much as possible for as long as possible, period.

Which is exactly what we've got and exactly what's happened over the course of the last two centuries. And the constitution nor the people by and large haven't done jack **** to stop it. In many ways they both have enabled it, as previously mentioned, the constitution through construction and the people through neglect.

You seem to want to approach this issue based on what you hope for rather than reality. Well theory has to prove its merit in practical application. There isn't a single written constitution in the history of the planet that has actually limited a government. Every single such constitution has been an assertion or a reassertion of desired or previosly removed central power respectively. The supposed 'limitations' built into these documents are nothing of the sort because they never serve to actually do that: limit the government. They are only effective in so far as those who want to govern can't push their powers beyond those who they aim to govern. If those they aim to govern have no objection, the constitution, any constitution, is a dead letter despite what it says and what the intent of some who voted for it may have been.

As such the only thing that limits the government is the popular will and what the productive class of workers will tolerate from the parasitic class of net tax consumers. And that changes from moment to moment, year to year, and no constitution ever stood in its way.

 

[Bass Master]

And, please do tell, what kind of dip**** expects the government to ever truly regulate itself? If the constitution needs good people to work, then a constitutional republic is just as utopian an idea as all out socialism or free market anarchism. The government will not by nature fight to limit itself, it will, as I've said, only not go after those powers it deems irrelevant at any given time, and use those as bone sto throw to the population under the guise of 'limits'. If the government is the judge and jury in its own case on every issue, you don't have to be Einstein to realize it's going progressively vote itself more power even if it's staffed with nothing but good people.

Every country, whether they have a great constitution or a poorly written, badly constructed constitution depends on it's people when it comes to holding government accountable and protecting liberty. You're right about there being no utopia, even a perfect "constitutional republic" because of mans nature to always abuse power and become corrupt. But that is not what I am saying. If the people today at least cared about true liberty and held the government accountable, we would at least hold back fascism and have more freedom today. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a utopia in this greedy world. I do not believe our constitution is going to make every single thing in America perfect, etc. People will always have to safeguard their freedoms. In general, freedom has always been paid for by the blood of patriots and tyrants and perhaps it will take more blood in the near future with the way things are going.

Those people will always want to Do Something! about this or that issue, but are by nature cut off from the normal channels of information most of the rest of the planet takes for granted. If they screw up, they get more money and power. If a problem gets worse under them, they get more people and resources to use to fight it. If people disgree, they don't have to convince, they just fine, jail, and ultimately shoot them.

I agree. But do you remember when, for example, parents were able to educate their children and the state didn't come in and make the parents answer to them? While things weren't perfect, at least kids back then at least had some backbone; they had a greater sense of responsibility. They seemed more aware about the things affecting their lives, their freedom, and their country. They seemed smarter. They weren't brainwashed like most kids are today. This is one of the main problems today. One of the most basic rights have been stripped from parents: teaching. Now kids have to answer to the state and are, to a large degree, compartmentalized (I'd also use the word "brainwashed") by todays government controlled, dogmatic educational system. This is why, when these kids grow up and are able to vote, etc., they don't make the right choices because they've been fed propaganda their whole lives, whether it be government text books or the tv. People, especially kids, grow up being taught to depend on government. Back then, people assumed a greater level of responsibility for their actions and weren't as dependent on government like many people are today. This leads to those kids making bad decisions when they become adults and that is why most kids and adults today do not care about true liberty, because 1. they are taught to depend on government indirectly, through various mechanisms, or 2. are brainwashed to depend on government or 3. are not educated about how politics really work (what kid today is educated about the Federal Reserve system in public school?) and how our monetary system works and the fraud it is or 4. are so sickened by the level of corruption and greed in todays politics, they just give up caring. I mean, most kids today aren't even taught how to balance a checkbook in high school or how to spend money. It's sad, really. After all, if any government or leader wants more power, they have to control the educational and voting system, to some degree.

It is a matter of prediction that when the government transitions from privately (monarchy) to publically (social democracy) owned, the same issues of public ownership that make parks and other such resources go to **** will affect the government. People will overuse it and not maintain it. It will be seen as an opportunity to take but not to give.

Our country was founded as a republic, not even a democracy, but now we aren't even a republic anymore because of people not holding government accountable. Yes, people will overuse the system or 'abuse' it because they are taught to literally depend on the system the moment they are born. If kids today were taught self-reliance, then future generations wouldn't be as dependent on government.

And while some few may put forward an effort to keep things straight, the bottom line reality is most people will simply respond to the incentive structure that's in place, which is to use the government to loot as much as possible for as long as possible, period.

Other than what I have already stated above being a good answer to this statement, I agree. People, other than the fact that they're taught to depend on government today, will always want a 'freebie' from government if given the chance. This is why I have said that I don't have much faith in todays political system or the people for that matter. The majority of Americans will wait until something major happens, like a complete economic collapse, then they will be so mad, it will possibly lead to the rise of a fascist leader or government (not that todays government isn't fascist or that it has happened already, but something more profound). This is why I do not rely on our cosntitution and I have repeatedly stated that it is ultimately up to the people. The Bill of Rights, for example, is just a guideline, but it alone, especially with an apathetic public, will not create the ideal utopia. No document will because there is no such thing as pefect in politics.

Which is exactly what we've got and exactly what's happened over the course of the last two centuries.

I agree. Government has been trying to grab more power and destroy parts of the constitution ever since it was established, because that is their nature. But things really started going downhill after the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in 1913.

And the constitution nor the people by and large haven't done jack **** to stop it. In many ways they both have enabled it, as previously mentioned, the constitution through construction and the people through neglect.

That is your opinion. As far as the constitution not fully working goes: that's because the public as a whole never really put the important parts of the constitution to use and actually tried to hold government accountable. You'll have decent politicians every now and then who try to hold government accountable, but thats fighting a battle they cannot win because for every honest poltician, there are 150 dirty polticians and the people simply do not care.....but they will when the black stuff hits the fan.

You seem to want to approach this issue based on what you hope for rather than reality.

There is nothing wrong with hope, only hope that is wasted and not put to good use via inspiration. I hope for a lot, and it inspires me and thats why I care and, for example, if someone wants to know about the Federal Reserve being a fraud, I will tell them. After all, it is better to die fighting then on your knees. If it ever got to the point where the government is kicking down the door and arresting you for telling others about the Fed or something else and what not, then I can at least say to myself with a clear conscience that I tried and didn't sit by and do nothing. But no, I understand reality. This is why I often say that I know the outcome will be an apathetic public who wants freebies from the government and do not care about liberty until it directly affects them.

Well theory has to prove its merit in practical application. There isn't a single written constitution in the history of the planet that has actually limited a government.

Yes, that is true. Even the documents in the world that were written to limit government to a certain degree have not been successful because of governments nature and an apathetic public who is dependent on the nanny state system. They still want 'momma's milk.'

Every single such constitution has been an assertion or a reassertion of desired or previosly removed central power respectively. The supposed 'limitations' built into these documents are nothing of the sort because they never serve to actually do that: limit the government. They are only effective in so far as those who want to govern can't push their powers beyond those who they aim to govern. If those they aim to govern have no objection, the constitution, any constitution, is a dead letter despite what it says and what the intent of some who voted for it may have been.

I agree, to a very large degree. As you know, I have talked about constitutional amendments to better protect the people and truly limit government, but, as you say, I don't have faith in that because, in reality, people today are just too damn dependent on government and are too damn lazy to care or get active, not to mention the massive polticial behemoth that is dependent on special interests that would block this. This is why the only answer would be a mass awakening where everyone throws out the dirty potlicians and runs for office themselves and get rid of the political barriers. But that, once again, falls in the realms of hope rather than reality.

As such the only thing that limits the government is the popular will and what the productive class of workers will tolerate from the parasitic class of net tax consumers. And that changes from moment to moment, year to year, and no constitution ever stood in its way.

I still think every country needs written law, as in some guideline, some constitution. But yes, it is always up to the popular will and that is why any constittuion will not work unless the people wake up and start caring.

 

[CDB]

I agree. Government has been trying to grab more power and destroy parts of the constitution ever since it was established, because that is their nature. But things really started going downhill after the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in 1913.

And that's where we disagree and a perfect example of what I'm talking about: I think we went downhill with the constitution. I have no idea how you differentiate every subsequent power grab as bad, but the initial one in the form of the constitution as good, other than through a normative judgement that at the time it was just the right amount of government in your view. I would generally agree with that level of government myself if it could be maintained, but it is not the nature of government to maintain itself but to expand. To my vew saying "If the people would just force the government to adhere to the constitution..." is almost, but not quite exactly, like saying all people have to do to defy gravity is write a constitution saying they can and just 'enforcing' it.

Some things are not simply matters of obedience, and saying that the constitution had built in limits is ignoring the fact that it was a power grab, the people got the power, and it has been subsequently used as the justification for massive expansions of state power through construction and neglect. What does the drug war rely on? Interstate commerce. What do agriultural controls and policy rely on? Interstate commerce. What does our welfare state rely on? General welfare and a couple of ammendments I believe. Jefferson warned the constitution could be made "a blank paper by construction." But that's only possible if it's there to begin with.

You brought up the Federal Reserve, one of its most pernicious effects is that the paper money it issues engenders a change in the relationship between government and the people. On a commodity standard it is clear to everyone that the government is dependent on the people, that it gets its revenue from the people, and that every increase in its power is also a threat for an increase in taxation. On a paper money standard the government has a surrepticious way of stealing, and can thus position itself as a source of wealth, not a consumer of it, and fools enough people that their fundamental attitude toward government changes from enemy to collaborator. The constituion engenders the same kind of change on a legal basis, and it does this through its facade of 'limitations'.

The government is power and coersion institutionalized, and no one wants power exercised over them despite what they wish for others. People usually oppose random grabs of power and find them threatening. But if the power hunger spell out what they want in terms of 'limits' or 'enumerated powers', even if it's as much a lie as the "government as fount of wealth" is, it still likewise fools enough people so the power hungry get their foot in the door, and following them over time is everyone else who just wants this or that specific power, but nothing too burdensome of course, not at all.

That process continues until, as with monetary inflation, we have legal inflation. The issuance and enactment of a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, burdensome taxes and agencies, and an alphabet soup of acronyms, each with a specific and limited power over our lives, all with their hands in our pocket. That is what the constitution inevitably gets you because it is at base a power grab, despite what the people of the time accept in terms of power they're will to cede, and despite even what the framers of the document want. It is an assertion of authority, and it doesn't matter how specifically limited it is initially, because all government powers trend from the special and specific to the conspicuous and the general. They do not trend in reverse except through revolution of one kind or another.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Good points. However, how many presidents do you know of that also:

1) Surrounded themselves with far left wing, outright devout communist freaks who had as their ultimate goal the reshaping of the United States into what the USSR supposedly might have been?

2) Had an FCC 'diversity czar' who has suggested white people step down so blacks can have more power, and that "hard structural rules" be put in place regarding broadcasting because the fairness doctrine "(wasn't) enough," and who thinks Hugo Chavez, a ****ing dictator, is just swell?

3) Had a 'science czar' who put his name on papers advocating forced sterilization, shot gun marriages and forced abortions for single mothers, while claiming all could be within the bounds of the constitution based on a population crisis which echos Paul Ehrlich's ravings in the Population Bomb, a guy whose claims have been nothing if terminally wrong? Forced sterilization and abortion constitutional? This guy needs to be shot.

Seriously, if you pick almost any Obama appointee besides Hillary and run their name for quotes you get a book of far left insanity back, people advocating positions so far to the left that it gives the frigging Swedes pause to wonder about their mental stability.

Know any of those presidents? This guy and his cohorts seem to have been locked in the very center and most isolated of the proverbial liberal echo chambers for the last 40-50 years, and they came out not realizing socialism is failing almost everywhere and fully determined to impose it here. At least the neocons limit most of their nutball fantasies to foreign policy. These guys are trying to implement it here. As a response to George W. Bush our country handed its government to a stoned college dorm room bull session and a bunch of people who, so far as I can tell, have almost never had to earn a living at a real job but who basically went from the mother's tit straight to the government's tit.

Know any of those presidents?

I was willing to give Obama chance in the hope he wouldn't **** things up too badly here and that we'd get a positive change in foreign policy. So far his change in foreign policy seems to be to wink at anyone who walks by and hand them a dildo and tube of astro glide, and he seems more determined than anything else to make damn well sure the government sucks up my paycheck and then some by the end of the day. I could have taken a liberal, I'd kill to have Bill Clinton back. The more I'm exposed to this guy and his administration, the more convinced I am that this team is totally off the ****ing rails. They said "Bye bye!" to reality a loooooong time ago.

It's not effing socialism to promote accountability in business. You yourself have plastered these boards with innumerable examples of how large companies have more power than they ought, and history has shown us that that kind of power has to be balanced.

Say what you want about Obama, I don't agree with everything he's doing either, but at least his power has inherent checks and balances. Can the same be said of the pharmaceutical companies?

Nah, they have enough money to CHANGE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

That is not okay.

Granted, this shift in medical policy is fairly drastic, but look at it this way: This is something that's been talked about for decades. It's something the medical community is ready for; something we can easily adapt to. And Obama is, perhaps naively, trying to do all the work that SHOULD have been done on this project over the past 50-60 years.

Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug, and while Obama may not have all the answers, I respect the heck out of a guy willing to stick his neck out politically and deal with a tough issue; attempt to institute a real change.

Even if he fails, or even if his plan flops, he's done more than the past few presidents combined just by getting the ball rolling on this stuff.

 

[CDB]

It's not effing socialism to promote accountability in business. You yourself have plastered these boards with innumerable examples of how large companies have more power than they ought, and history has shown us that that kind of power has to be balanced.

They get that power through the government. Bitching about banks and controlling pay rates is not 'accountability,' it's socialism and assinine economic analysis. If the government was so hell bent on accountability in business they wouldn't be socializing the losses of millionaire bankers on the tax payer's backs while leaving the incentive structure that they set up and which inevitably lead to the problem in place. They further wouldn't be engaging in the same exact policies which brought on the recession just to increase spending and jack up meaningless GDP figures to fool people into thinking there is 'growth' when rampant spending is really all that is there, and certainly no jobs worth a fart in a hurricane.

Say what you want about Obama, I don't agree with everything he's doing either, but at least his power has inherent checks and balances. Can the same be said of the pharmaceutical companies?

Yes it can, when the government doesn't hand them a guaranteed revenue stream. The government has no checks and balances, it never did. It is judge and jury in its own case in every situation.

Granted, this shift in medical policy is fairly drastic, but look at it this way: This is something that's been talked about for decades. It's something the medical community is ready for; something we can easily adapt to. And Obama is, perhaps naively, trying to do all the work that SHOULD have been done on this project over the past 50-60 years

.

No, it's something that's eventually going to lead to mass shortages, waiting lists, lower survivability rates, lack of innovation, and eventualy impoverishment of this country beyond what its already massive debt load guarantees. America does everything bigger, faster, better, and to more of an extreme than any other country, and we're demonstrating that by doing so with our **** ups as well as our successes.

Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug, and while Obama may not have all the answers, I respect the heck out of a guy willing to stick his neck out politically and deal with a tough issue; attempt to institute a real change.

Death is a real change, I'd rather avoid it. And if you truly think "Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug" then you're a fruitcake. The Federal Code is 35 feet of shelf space of books in small print and a ****load of those codes apply to the health care industry. I guess Medicare/caid don't exist? I guess the HMO act was never passed? I guess the government never gave the AMA control of the medical schools? I guess wages were never frozen during WWII and the subsequent offerring of benefits was never made tax free?

Previous administrations haven't ignored health care, they've paid so much loving attention to it that it has become the monstrosity it is today. They have spread their metaphorical spooge all over the ****ing thing. And with the government footing just under half the bills annually, the majority of the rest being covered by a government mandated third party corporate sponsored payment system that has tried by mandate to 'insure' everything from catastrophic diseases to drug addiction to in-grown toe nails, you want to blame the market and propose more government 'help' as the solution? The government doesn't just have its finger prints all over the health care industry, the government has its **** all the way up the health care industry's ass, a gun to its head, and no lube, and you want to blame the problems on... Big Pharma? Reality is knocking, Luther. It's inviting you back in free of charge for the last time before anti psychotics and big butterfly nets are in order.

Even if he fails, or even if his plan flops, he's done more than the past few presidents combined just by getting the ball rolling on this stuff.

He's gotten the ball rolling, sure. And it's going to crush everything in it's path and leave a ****ing wasteland of **** in its wake. And please, do not pull that ridiculous WHO report out as 'proof' socialized care works. It's been torn to **** and back for all the worthless crap and logical fallacies and **** methods in it, so it's worthless and I really don't care to detail all the problems with it again for trillionth time.

 

[lutherblsstt]

They get that power through the government. Bitching about banks and controlling pay rates is not 'accountability,' it's socialism and assinine economic analysis. If the government was so hell bent on accountability in business they wouldn't be socializing the losses of millionaire bankers on the tax payer's backs while leaving the incentive structure that they set up and which inevitably lead to the problem in place. They further wouldn't be engaging in the same exact policies which brought on the recession just to increase spending and jack up meaningless GDP figures to fool people into thinking there is 'growth' when rampant spending is really all that is there, and certainly no jobs worth a fart in a hurricane.



Yes it can, when the government doesn't hand them a guaranteed revenue stream. The government has no checks and balances, it never did. It is judge and jury in its own case in every situation.

.

No, it's something that's eventually going to lead to mass shortages, waiting lists, lower survivability rates, lack of innovation, and eventualy impoverishment of this country beyond what its already massive debt load guarantees. America does everything bigger, faster, better, and to more of an extreme than any other country, and we're demonstrating that by doing so with our **** ups as well as our successes.



Death is a real change, I'd rather avoid it. And if you truly think "Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug" then you're a fruitcake. The Federal Code is 35 feet of shelf space of books in small print and a ****load of those codes apply to the health care industry. I guess Medicare/caid don't exist? I guess the HMO act was never passed? I guess the government never gave the AMA control of the medical schools? I guess wages were never frozen during WWII and the subsequent offerring of benefits was never made tax free?

Previous administrations haven't ignored health care, they've paid so much loving attention to it that it has become the monstrosity it is today. They have spread their metaphorical spooge all over the ****ing thing. And with the government footing just under half the bills annually, the majority of the rest being covered by a government mandated third party corporate sponsored payment system that has tried by mandate to 'insure' everything from catastrophic diseases to drug addiction to in-grown toe nails, you want to blame the market and propose more government 'help' as the solution? The government doesn't just have its finger prints all over the health care industry, the government has its **** all the way up the health care industry's ass, a gun to its head, and no lube, and you want to blame the problems on... Big Pharma? Reality is knocking, Luther. It's inviting you back in free of charge for the last time before anti psychotics and big butterfly nets are in order.



He's gotten the ball rolling, sure. And it's going to crush everything in it's path and leave a ****ing wasteland of **** in its wake. And please, do not pull that ridiculous WHO report out as 'proof' socialized care works. It's been torn to **** and back for all the worthless crap and logical fallacies and **** methods in it, so it's worthless and I really don't care to detail all the problems with it again for trillionth time.

And if it was McCain, you'd daffodil too. You're a born pessimist.

 

[Rick28]

I own this video and love it.

 

[CDB]

And if it was McCain, you'd daffodil too. You're a born pessimist.

No, I'm a born realist. McCain would have done something to make slightly different special interests happy.

 

[lutherblsstt]

No, I'm a born realist. McCain would have done something to make slightly different special interests happy.

Everybody always says they're a realist, but you never say a positive word about anything or anyone. You post half conjecture, half biased tripe.

 

[CDB]

Everybody always says they're a realist, but you never say a positive word about anything or anyone. You post half conjecture, half biased tripe.

No, sorry to say, that's you Luther. There's nothing I've typed that can't be verified. It's people like you who regard any and all government interventions short of out and out nationalization of entire industries as 'the free market' or negligible in some way that are out to lunch. It's a trait you share with Neo Conservatives, though I don't doubt you would be hard pressed to admit it. They just apply their convenient five minute memory spans to foreeign policy so they forget anything and everything we did prior to the current situation, so as to view it isolation and not the result of some prior policy decision, so engage in what they see as inevitable and necessary action to correct a problem which, to them, simply popped up instead of being of their own making. All I'm doing to you is exactly what you try to do to them when you point out for example that Iranians are not war mongering nonhumans and suggest that perhaps what happened before in the middle east and our part in it has something to do with the current situation we're in. Your claim that previous administrations had ignored health care is just as untrue as Neo Con's claims that the middle east is some **** pile in which we've only done good or stayed out of, and all the current problems that exist there just keep popping up out of no where and have nothing at all to do with our prior policies regarding the region. Just as untrue, and just as destructive if believed and acted on.

Whether regarding foreign policy or domestic policy, it is equally incorrect to portray current problems as spun out of whole cloth by someone else, and it is completely incorrect to try and portray the US government, one of the most activist and interventionist leaning governments in the history of the planet both with regard to domestic and foreign affairs, as some bystander which had nothing to do with the making of the current situation in question, be it the cluster **** that is health care in the US, or the cluster **** that is the middle east. As with the Neo Cons, you don't get to just ignore or claim as negligible all theprevious interventions that have occurred because you agree with them or because you don't know about them. Regardless of either justification, they do have consequences.

 

[GuyverX]

The new V miniseries is coming on soon.
Where the reptilian aliens promise humans miracles and a better life.
However the truth is that we are breeders, food, and toys to them.

Lolz

 

[CDB]

The new V miniseries is coming on soon.
Where the reptilian aliens promise humans miracles and a better life.
However the truth is that we are breeders, food, and toys to them.

Lolz

I don't see they could bring anything new to this premise except better special effects.

 

[GuyverX]

I don't see they could bring anything new to this premise except better special effects.

Very likely scenario.
They showed the old series on one of the cable channels last week.
I mentioned it because of the earlier comment about reploids and reptilians masquerading as humans.

It just gets me how some I know personally seem to perceive Obama as some kind of savior and more than a man, especially among my own general ethnic background.
Eh he's a politician, and if he made it to the office of the Pres, he's playing their game so to me he's just another schmuck in a suit.....

Whether or not he actually is trying to improve things or not, unless people and the system in general changes I can see it as nothing more than trying/claiming to put a band aid on a gaping head wound.

Interesting thread in general though.
All parties seemed to have some good points, even in the case of simple humor.

As far as history goes unless one was there, its all conjecture based on one's general perception and life experience at the time.
Just like any other books, the historical ones are written with the bias of the authors.
And modern citizens can glean some of the truth based on the conditions to day but nowhere near all of it.

Some of us disagree with some of the ways in which our country has been run in our lifetimes.
I for one know there is no government I will be comfortable under because there is no human or other that I can truly trust to have my best interest totally at heart except for me(and that isnt guaranteed either).

Give a human power over others and all you do is magnify the effect of any good or bad decision that person makes. And that is one of the primary issues.
We pay our taxes and the politicians decide based on their own mindset bnecause, thats all a human can do.

How do we solve it, who knows. There are a lot of proposals but what works for some may not work for all.
Maybe those with like minds need to find some land somewhere and found their own nation as they see fit.
I could go into the history/textbook/current events/ factual based line that some of you have delved into. But this particular discussion is one I participate in quite a bit online and off regularly.
Just easier to stick to a limited personal opinion.

One suggestion I make for us all, lets just try our individual best to treat others with respect and to not harm them. And to stand up for fair treatment of people in general.
And then whatever comes we can be sure we did our part.

Life is a mean B, and then you die.