25 Apr 10
Originally posted by WajomaThat's the problem with lawmakers these days. They seem to trust our judgement when it comes time to elect them, but then they throw that notion out the window once elected. Perhaps it's a sick joke, or maybe they're just human like the rest of us, susceptible to illusions of grandeur.
Beyer, you're not qualified to assess 'frivolous fancies', pooper sees himself as being more qualified than your good self to make those judgements.
Eric Haney, Inside Delta Force, puts it well, " This experience also taught me to evaluate every mission by my own innate standards of what was just and right. I came to realize that there was no such thing as a monolithic government always striving to do the right thing, even if it did sometimes make mistakes. I understood all too well that a government was made up of many people with different -- and sometimes venal -- agendas. And sometimes those kinds of people hold high office and wield enormous power, simply to further their own ends."
Anyways, I'll stop since this is offtopic.
25 Apr 10
Originally posted by BeyerThat's what a well-functioning democracy does - people vote for the person who sets out certain tasks for government (and corresponding taxes) which they like most compared to the other candidates. Your criticism is self-contradictory.
That's the problem with lawmakers these days. They seem to trust our judgement when it comes time to elect them, but then they throw that notion out the window once elected. Perhaps it's a sick joke, or maybe they're just human like the rest of us, susceptible to illusions of grandeur.
Eric Haney, Inside Delta Force, puts it well, " This experience also tau ...[text shortened]... us power, simply to further their own ends."
Anyways, I'll stop since this is offtopic.
25 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy criticism is when the lawmakers overstep their limits, and create programs ...programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.
That's what a well-functioning democracy does - people vote for the person who sets out certain tasks for government (and corresponding taxes) which they like most compared to the other candidates. Your criticism is self-contradictory.
25 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by BeyerThe constitution also called on the government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that will be debated for eternity.
as outlined in the Constitution, what the founding fathers intended.
However; how on earth anybody can lay claim to knowing what the founding fathers had in mind as it pertains to modern society? They established a system for a few small, loose colonies back when high tech travel was an animal pulling a cart on wheels. Contrast that to modern society with the passage of the industrial revolution and the tech boom, with the complex modernized world we have today, with a population of 300,000,000 US citizens, with the necessity for a military industrial complex, modern medicine, space programs, the internet, binary code being used as monetary currency, etc. etc.
The "framers" would have no idea what the hell to think about today's society. For example, how would Thomas Jefferson have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991? The act involved the use an enormous amount of tax payer money, so certainly he would have an opinion... right?
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe constitution also called on the government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that will be debated for eternity.
The constitution also called on the government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that will be debated for eternity.
However; how on earth anybody can lay claim to knowing what the founding fathers had in mind as it pertains to modern society? They established a system for a few ...[text shortened]... use an enormous amount of tax payer money, so certainly he would have an opinion... right?
This thread has my thoughts on that, if you're interested.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129378&page=6
However; how on earth anybody can lay claim to knowing what the founding fathers had in mind as it pertains to modern society?
"What a relief that we have people in our government who will keep us posted on which constitutional provisions they have decided are no longer "relevant"!"
-- Ron Paul, The Revoluion: A Manifesto
I think perhaps the founding fathers weren't that stupid when they proposed an amendment process.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh yeah right, that's when the mob votes away the rights of minorities.
That's what a well-functioning democracy does - people vote for the person who sets out certain tasks for government (and corresponding taxes) which they like most compared to the other candidates. Your criticism is self-contradictory.
26 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Beyer.....This is why Obama made sure the Amish were exempted. Its to reclaim the language of mercy in the office of the President. We hated Osama Bin Laden for what he did, so the equity in soundbite office (EISO-they are a subcommittee to the GAO) formulated a strategy for Obama and Biden to be elected.
My criticism is when the lawmakers overstep their limits, and create programs ...programs that are extraneous to the intended function of government.
Because Clinton allowed a small group of largely innocent people led by a megalomaniac called Koresh be burnt out of existence, Obama offers the olive branch to the Amish.
Its subtle, but it is insidious. The EISO reclaim positive association with every previously tarnished phonic group, wherever they find it. Its an incremental process, but at some not too distant future, once the mindset of the electorate will have been thoroughly cleansed of all negative associations with any similarity to a given phonic construct, we will then be standing at the threshold of the long awaited peaceful eternity......
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by BeyerYour "what a relief" comment has nothing to do with what I said. I never said articles in the Constitution are not relevant. I'm saying claims as to what the founders "envisioned" have absolutely nothing to do with today. I don't think any of the founders envisioned anything remotely resembling the world we live in today.
[b]The constitution also called on the government to "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. There are many interpretations of the Constitution that will be debated for eternity.
This thread has my thoughts on that, if you're interested.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129378&page=6
However; how on earth anybody c ...[text shortened]... erhaps the founding fathers weren't that stupid when they proposed an amendment process.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBecause they didn't know about internet porn that means they didn't know what freedom and limited guvamint means.
Your "what a relief" comment has nothing to do with what I said. I never said articles in the Constitution are not relevant. I'm saying claims as to what the founders "envisioned" have absolutely nothing to do with today. I don't think any of the founders envisioned anything remotely resembling the world we live in today.
Yes, yes I see your logic.
26 Apr 10
If the article is correct, the Amish as a group take care of their own medical expenses. Also, it is my understanding that the mandated participation in having insurance for Obamacare is intended to prevent people from using the system without anyone there to pay for it. After all, what are you going to do with someone dragged off the street who has had a heart attack? You treat him irregardless of whether he or she can pay. However, if the Amish have a track record of being "good pay", then why penalize them by participating in Obamacare? These people will not be costing the tax payers ANYTHING if they are "good pay", in fact, they will be less of a burden on a soon to be overburdened system as it is. For example, the US will have myriads of illegals to treat.....execpt maybe in ARIZONA!! LOL.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by WajomaSo how would the founders have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991? That was a huge "big guvamint" program.
Because they didn't know about internet porn that means they didn't know what freedom and limited guvamint means.
Yes, yes I see your logic.
26 Apr 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe principles of self ownership, the right to life, liberty and private property, the concept of limited guvamint can be applied to any situation.
So how would the founders have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991? That was a huge "big guvamint" program.
Give us an example (and NO, I am not going to read another 500 pages of bureaRatic bs) and I'll have a crack at it.