Calling guard dog and others

[Humodour]

Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Anyone who understands what the mutt is really saying.

 

You're calling a two tour vet, who reads foreign newspapers, and talks at length and coherently a mindless parrot? You think you're a freedom fighter if you demand the right to look at **** on the forum.

A parrot is someone repeating stuff without reflecting upon it. How "two tour vet" or reading foreign papers would have any relevance to this is beyond me.

 

I would probably care about the second part of the sentence if I didn't realize I was replying to a guy who'll **** his pants if I folded a piece of paper the wrong way.

 

This post is absolutely impossible to understand while stoned.

[Meshugger]

Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Anyone who understands what the mutt is really saying.

 

You're calling a two tour vet, who reads foreign newspapers, and talks at length and coherently a mindless parrot? You think you're a freedom fighter if you demand the right to look at **** on the forum.

A parrot is someone repeating stuff without reflecting upon it. How "two tour vet" or reading foreign papers would have any relevance to this is beyond me.

 

I would probably care about the second part of the sentence if I didn't realize I was replying to a guy who'll **** his pants if I folded a piece of paper the wrong way.

 

You seem very agitated by his character, i suggest that you calm down for a moment. Even if you think that the ideas of laissez-faire economics, minimalist government or the ideas of Von Mises and Hayek are silly and lack any ground of reality, i see no point than trying to heckle, even if it feels like that you are heckled upon. How about discredit their ideas with a sound argument? Like why the Thomas Paine-quote is untrue/unsound or simply bad?

[Meshugger]

For example: I, for one, do not agree with Thomas Paine's argument about a goverment that governs the least, governs the best. Why? Because how can such a government protect the rights of the individual citizen against the majority when it would most likely lack in legal enforcement and in terms of resources?

[Walsingham]

Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Anyone who understands what the mutt is really saying.

 

You're calling a two tour vet, who reads foreign newspapers, and talks at length and coherently a mindless parrot? You think you're a freedom fighter if you demand the right to look at **** on the forum.

A parrot is someone repeating stuff without reflecting upon it. How "two tour vet" or reading foreign papers would have any relevance to this is beyond me.

 

I would probably care about the second part of the sentence if I didn't realize I was replying to a guy who'll **** his pants if I folded a piece of paper the wrong way.

 

You simply assume he hasn't reflected on it. Which seems unlikely given his other behaviour.

 

And you really need a new comeback.

[Rostere]

It's a question of space, time, and complexity.

 

Pretty much sums it up I think.

[Wrath of Dagon]

For example: I, for one, do not agree with Thomas Paine's argument about a goverment that governs the least, governs the best. Why? Because how can such a government protect the rights of the individual citizen against the majority when it would most likely lack in legal enforcement and in terms of resources?

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law.

[Oblarg]

For example: I, for one, do not agree with Thomas Paine's argument about a goverment that governs the least, governs the best. Why? Because how can such a government protect the rights of the individual citizen against the majority when it would most likely lack in legal enforcement and in terms of resources?

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law.

 

That's a lot more reasonable, but that's not really an argument for an unconditionally small government, either. The quote would probable be misinterpreted less if people stopped presenting it as such.

[kirottu]

Goverment that governs least would still govern that smallest amount possible. There is no goverment to govern in anarchy.

 

I never though Paine was talking about anarchy.

[Guard Dog]

Hi all, I'm on the road right now... had to drive up to kentucky for a tower inspection and customer consult. Ill be back late tonight so I'll replay to whats been said then. I'm still following on BBerry. Just a preview, my ideas of what government should and should not be doing are based entirely on concept of federalisim.

[Meshugger]

For example: I, for one, do not agree with Thomas Paine's argument about a goverment that governs the least, governs the best. Why? Because how can such a government protect the rights of the individual citizen against the majority when it would most likely lack in legal enforcement and in terms of resources?

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law.

 

I understand the point or the original idea behind. What i meant was that it can be a slippery slope since it can be quite difficult to define things as common security. Maybe i am just thinking too much into it.

[Guard Dog]

Ok folks, I'm back.

 

This will hardly be the first time I

[Trenitay]

I may be wrong on this but I'm getting the impression that you really want to live in the 1800's. That just doesn't seem feasible because it's been about 100 years since they've been gone. We can't be held back just because you aren't ready for change. And not the Obama-change or liberal-change, just good old-fashioned forward moving progress. I somehow can't see how the founding fathers could have possibly planned for every little thing that's happened in the past 200 years in our little government-shaping document.

[Hurlshort]

I just think there is a middle ground, it doesn't have to be completely separate states and it doesn't have to be absolute Federal power. GD raises a lot of good points, but there are also some situations where the Federal government really does need to step in. The abolition of slavery is a famous one. The desegregation of the school systems is another. Gay marriage is likely next. If the state and its population are actively involved in discrimination, then I support the Federal government stepping in.

 

As for health care, I'm not sure where I stand. The current system is super broken. The states have not shown an ability to fix it. If the Federal government can fix it, then I would probably support them, but I'm not sold on them being capable.

[Gfted1]

I may be wrong on this but I'm getting the impression that you really want to live in the 1800's. That just doesn't seem feasible because it's been about 100 years since they've been gone. We can't be held back just because you aren't ready for change. And not the Obama-change or liberal-change, just good old-fashioned forward moving progress. I somehow can't see how the founding fathers could have possibly planned for every little thing that's happened in the past 200 years in our little government-shaping document.

 

Not one word of his post had anything to do with the forward progress of time and everything to do with the division of powers. It doesnt matter whats "changed" in society over the last 200 years, it matters whos governing, state vs federal.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I may be wrong on this but I'm getting the impression that you really want to live in the 1800's. That just doesn't seem feasible because it's been about 100 years since they've been gone. We can't be held back just because you aren't ready for change. And not the Obama-change or liberal-change, just good old-fashioned forward moving progress. I somehow can't see how the founding fathers could have possibly planned for every little thing that's happened in the past 200 years in our little government-shaping document.

If the Constitution needs to change, there's the amendment process. It's a favorite trick of the liberals to run to the courts to get their way instead of trying to win over public opinion.

[Oblarg]

Well, I'm impressed, this has not devolved into a flamewar.

[Guard Dog]

Well, I'm impressed, this has not devolved into a flamewar.

Well, the other night I was trying to kill my insomnia with bourbon, and I was about 1/3 of the way through a bottle when I started trading posts with you. I was finding it difficult to formulate rational arguments.

[Guard Dog]

I may be wrong on this but I'm getting the impression that you really want to live in the 1800's. That just doesn't seem feasible because it's been about 100 years since they've been gone. We can't be held back just because you aren't ready for change. And not the Obama-change or liberal-change, just good old-fashioned forward moving progress. I somehow can't see how the founding fathers could have possibly planned for every little thing that's happened in the past 200 years in our little government-shaping document.

I know you are a young man, but I still find it a little disturbing that you equate the loss of liberties and the dimishment of Federalisim with a regression of history and progress. I really do not see the coorelation at all. Someday Awesomess you are going to wake up and realize that American citizens are noticably less free than they were just twenty five years ago. Not greatly, but noticably. What will happen twenty five years from now if things are not brought back into alignment? Fifty years from now? The way we are trending there will come a time in either the near or distant future when no one could call the US a free country with a straight face. Unlike money, liberty is a zero sum commodity. Either the government has liberty over you or you have it over yourself. The more the scale slides to one side, the less it has on the other.

[Guard Dog]

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

No Big Brother building infra structure. No Big Brother putting out the fire when your house is burning. No Big Brother trying to catch the criminal that just robbed you. No Big Brother to aid you when you want to have a child. No Big Brother to aid you when your child falls ill. No Big Brother to teach your child the valuables of life. No Big Brother telling that dude in the 18-wheeler that he can't just run over your Mini. No Big Brother interfering when your investments run off to a Caribbean island. No Big Brother trying to evacuate you after your excessive Humvee driving might have flooded your state.

 

No, you need not go on. We all realize what an ignoramus you are.

 

You throw around that Big Brother term without actually knowing what you're talking about. A society is simply people helping each other, but I'm guessing it suits your absurd self image as some sort of Captain America Freedom Fighter to keep calling it Big Brother. Mindless parrot.

 

You know, I can not ever remember you posting something in a thread like this that did not involve an ad hominem attack on someone. Is that the best you can do? When words fail, resort to insults. You are a much smarter guy than that mkreku.

[Guard Dog]

I have a hard time reconciling political parties that take the position of "small government" while also taking the position that marriage needs to be regulated and people shouldn't be allowed to build Mosques in their neighborhood.

I agree. That is one reason I am so happy to see the decline of the neo-cons and the religious-right in the Republicans. I am not a republican, I'm actually a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. But I usually do vote Republican because the Democrat in the race scares the heck out of me. I have never understood how a group of people can so distrust the government on economic issues and then turn around and ask that same government to be the "moral police". And vice versa for the lefties.

 

Ok, I think I caught up on repying to everyone.

[Hurlshort]

Hey what about me?

[Guard Dog]

I just think there is a middle ground, it doesn't have to be completely separate states and it doesn't have to be absolute Federal power. GD raises a lot of good points, but there are also some situations where the Federal government really does need to step in. The abolition of slavery is a famous one. The desegregation of the school systems is another. Gay marriage is likely next. If the state and its population are actively involved in discrimination, then I support the Federal government stepping in.

 

As for health care, I'm not sure where I stand. The current system is super broken. The states have not shown an ability to fix it. If the Federal government can fix it, then I would probably support them, but I'm not sold on them being capable.

Sorry Hurlie

 

When the Supreme Court made it's decision on Brown v Board it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce the law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The federal interventions to enforce desegregations was entirly proper and if you will recall, restrianed. Mosto f the resistance was token and political anyway. Even Wallace was only trying to boost his own career with his stand in the school house door. This was not an abuse of federal power. I'm fine with it.

 

As for slavery, that is the one great sin of our Republic. As horrible was it was, imagine for a moment that it had never happened. Suppose the founders had tackeled that issue right from the start and abolished it. Most of the African-Americans who have lived and left their mark on the US might never have been born. Suppose there had never been a Martin Luther King, or Fredrick Douglass, Carter G Woodson, Langston Huges, Billie Holiday, Clarence Thomas, I could go on. I'm not suggesting that generations of misery were a good thing but some good has come from it. We certainly would have been less than we are had we never known those names.

 

As for Gay marriage, i really do not know where that is going. We've beaten that one to death in other threads anyway. You know where I stand on it, everyone should be completely free to live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not hurting someone else. Like I always say, if you oppose gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

GD, one of the problems with strictly adhereing to the constitution like that, is that it wasn't designed to handle a nation that is this large and with this particular population density.

 

I mean electoral college as set up is designed because the members of the college would take the votes of those in their area, then be the one to report what they thought to the feds.

 

Also, in Article One Section 8 you get this:

 

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.

Which doesn't exactly conform to your particular hard line view of how the federal government should operate. It specifically says that Congress has the power to enact laws that are necessary and proper for the governing of the people, and to protect their rights. Several of the things you thought the government shouldn't have a hand in would fall under the necessary and proper clause mixed with the Bill of Rights.

 

And then there is also that "pursuit of happiness" thing.

 

Also, I am assuming that you would be including the amendments within your definition of strictly adhering to the Constitution correct?

 

And Dagon, "liberals" (probably the most generic term I've heard of in the political arena...) aren't the only ones who run to the supreme court. It's just that usually the question placed before the court is one that a republican/conservative group has forced that tends to impede on rights.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Calax

[Trenitay]

I know you are a young man, but I still find it a little disturbing that you equate the loss of liberties and the dimishment of Federalisim with a regression of history and progress. I really do not see the coorelation at all. Someday Awesomess you are going to wake up and realize that American citizens are noticably less free than they were just twenty five years ago. Not greatly, but noticably. What will happen twenty five years from now if things are not brought back into alignment? Fifty years from now? The way we are trending there will come a time in either the near or distant future when no one could call the US a free country with a straight face. Unlike money, liberty is a zero sum commodity. Either the government has liberty over you or you have it over yourself. The more the scale slides to one side, the less it has on the other.

 

Sorry, the way I worded that first post was not the way I meant for it to sound. I should probably just stop posting in these topics, because I really only hurt my arguments, but I'm a slow learner so here it goes. I can agree with most of what you've said here. I think just about everybody knows that the government has gotten excessively large in the past few years. However, I don't believe that going completely back to the government outlined in the Constitution is the way to go. They do need to loosen their hold on some things, but letting everything go I think would be disastrous. I also don't think we are less free, just that the government is more free than it used to be.

[Guard Dog]

GD, one of the problems with strictly adhereing to the constitution like that, is that it wasn't designed to handle a nation that is this large and with this particular population density.

 

I mean electoral college as set up is designed because the members of the college would take the votes of those in their area, then be the one to report what they thought to the feds.

 

I disagree with you completely here. Because the population has become so large it is more important than ever for federal power to be restrained. The larger and more diverse the nation becomes the more important local governance becomes. Big bureaucracies are by their very nature inefficient. The requirements of governing New York are not the same as Iowa; Federal power is a broadsword, not a scalpel. By helping one region it is often harming another.

 

Also, in Article One Section 8 you get this:

 

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.

 

Which doesn't exactly conform to your particular hard line view of how the federal government should operate. It specifically says that Congress has the power to enact laws that are necessary and proper for the governing of the people, and to protect their rights. Several of the things you thought the government shouldn't have a hand in would fall under the necessary and proper clause mixed with the Bill of Rights.

 

Actually you are misreading that. The "Necassary and Proper" clause empowers congress to enact laws requires to excecute it's enumerated powers. It does not give them the authority to take on any power not defined by the constitution. Although, historically speaking they have done exactly that. Thanks to a supreme court justice named John Marshall we have "implied powers" which congress has taken to mean that the powers enumerated to Congress are whatever the hell they say they are. But even he would be disgusted by what is happeneing in the last twenty years. Up until Obamacare the Necassary and Proper clause has been the most distorted and abused clause. Now the Commerce Clause it closing that sad gap.

 

And then there is also that "pursuit of happiness" thing.

 

This is not actually codified into law in any way.

 

Also, I am assuming that you would be including the amendments within your definition of strictly adhering to the Constitution correct?

 

Of course! In fact I have a great idea for a 28th Amendment. It should read like this: Congress shall make no law that applies to the people of the United States that does not also apply in equal measure to the members of Congress, or the President, or the Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress shall make no law that applies to the members of Congress, or the or the President, or the Justices of the Supreme Court that does not also apply in equal measure to the people of the Unites States.

 

Ok, I did not actually come up with that but I love it.