Guard Dog

You mean aside from judicial institutions that are meant to ensure that the rule of law is followed? Or the democratically elected opposition? Or the free press? Ultimately - consent of the people. Oh yes and all of those things did so well in Kelo v New London, Klammath Falls, Ruby Ridge, I could go on all day with just modern examples. Don't get me wrong, by and large the system does work, but not always, and certainly not for everyone. Do you really think the government should have the right to seize your house and sell it someone else because they will pay more taxes for it? Do you think it's right proper for the government to shut down a company and drive it to bankruptcy, at the same time putting an entire town full of people out of work all to protect the envorment of some worthless little bird that later turned out not to live anywhere near that area? Should missing a court appearence merit a death sentence from an FBI sniper all because a man refused to testify against people he was afraid of? Is it right for the federal government to turn off the water to an an entire town of farmers driving them all into forclosure because of the caprice of an EPA bueracrat? Have you ever been audited by the IRS? Ever had to take and level of government to court? They will grind you to nothing unless you find a lawyer who will work for free. Small chance of that if it's not a criminal case. Heck I'm dealing with a problem right now because my property sits on the Hatchee River in TN and there are plans to use emminent domain to seize part of the land I bought and paid for to create a right away for the Hatchee wildlife management area. You know that will end up in court. How do you think I'll do there with my limited checking account. Your fourth amendment rights don't amount to a steaming pile of coyote spoor is the "government" decides it wants what you have. Edit) Every one of these bad acts was done by the federal government. The US constitution did not give it the authority for any of it. It has simply "assumed" the authority because it is the federal government and no one can stop it. If that does not scare the hell out of you, what will? Take a good look at Obamacare. Does the constitution give the federal government the authority to compell you to buy something with the threat of jail and crippling fines if you do not obey? Of course it does not. But they have assumed the authority on their own and the so-called free press is lauding them for it.

Descriptor originally coined in Germany for left-wing environmentalists : Watermelon - Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Most Greens are socialists in hippy clothing, at the end of the day they want to take your money and tell you how to live your life and how to think. The vehicle for their authoritarian leftist agenda is saving the planet. Totally agree. To quote HL Menken "The desire to save the world is just a false face for the desire to rule it"

Oh no, I've never claimed companies can do no harm. They absolutely can. What I've said is companies cannot take anything from you that you do not give them willingly. You know what corporations want, they want your money. You always know right where you stand with them. But they cannot compell you to give it to them. They are going to offer you something in return. If you don't like them, their product, how they do business you are free to not give them your money. You are even free to convince other people not to give them their money. It is all about freedom. Freedom is the most important thing in this world. I'll take freedom over security, wealth, a cold beer in the fridge. Taking Krezacks example of BP, setting aside all the civil and legal penalties they are paying if you are mad about what they did, don't by petroleum products that come from BP. Their business is suffering here in the US because of boycotts. It DOES work. Just ask GM & Citgo. Ask BP. Now with govenment there is no carrot, it is only the stick. You will do this or you will be arrested, your proerty seized, your assets lost, your freedom lost. With government it is ALL about compulsion. Governments are expected to apply the law equally to companies and people alike but who applies the law to the government? What is to stop them from seizing my home and selling it to someone else? What stops them from arresting me for nothing? The largest and most powerful company in the world could not do that if it used it's entire treasury. The smallest government right here in Tennessee could do all those things. And before Enoch shows up squaking about due process, I'll ask again: who applies the law to the government? Who should I really be afraid of here? If corporations want money, governments want power. The more power they have over you, the less you have over yourself. Freedom, unlike money is a zero sum commodity. there is only so much of it. The more they take, the less you have. There are only two defenses against government. Really only one, because the the only one that works is to keep them as small as possible so they can do as much good as then need to and as little harm as possible. The second is bullets. That one really does not work well but at least you will have the pride of knowing you did not take it lying down. And it is far better than prison.

Yup. There is a real history in the US of political corruption because of large campaign donations. Another US President accepted nearly $4M in total donations from Chinese nationals then looked the other way when it became obvious there was Chinese espionage going on at our nuclear research facility in Los Palamos CA. Actually there are a couple of cases on this point. Without looking it up the first one that comes to mind is Ohio Oil Co. vs State of Indiana. If the pollution crosses state borders then the affected state and Federal autority can take corrective and punative action. Generally speaking the State governments are on top of this. After all, no one loves your state like you do.

You know, I almost did not respond to this. Posting in these threads on this board is usually a huge waste of my time because 1) Not many of you actually read the posts, 2) Most folks here are so utterly closed minded and hostile to opposing points of view that if they did read it, it never gets through. Krezack, you my friend, fall squarely into the latter catagory. Case in point, you seem to be under the impression I am either an anarchist or a plutocrat. I'm never sure which because your opinion changes with the topic. And your ignorance of the US and how it really works is always amusing. You see a few Micheal Moore flicks and read the Huffington Post every once in a while and you think you know ALL about the US. Heck I read through the Herald Sun about once a week but I'm not so arrogant to think than gives me an in depth understanding of Austrailia. Especailly since I've never even been there much less lived there. Thats why you never have to read me telling you what Austrailia is REALLY like That would just be absurd, don't you think? Anyway, back on topic. Libertarian political philosophy, at least as it is applied in the United States, simply calls for all levels of government to act only within the bounds of their constitutional authority. The US Government is required oversee and administrate the use of natural resources. Furthermore, every state government has very broad authority to regulate commercial activity with regard to extraction of natural resources within state boundries and believe me, they excersize it. In fact this is one of the few areas where state authority overrides federal authority. I could rattle off a dozen or so cases where the SCOTUS has come down solidly on the side of States Rights because the federal responsibility is poorly defined but the state laws are specific and fairly broad. So since I've laid all that out you can see why I have no problem at all with a state or the federal government taking a regulatory interest in activites such as oil or gas drilling and do not see such an interest as an overreach of government power. Now if the oil well is located in a state like Texas for example, and the EPA begins to usurp the Texas Department of Energy, then I have a problem with it. Get the picture about American Libertariansim? I'm afraid I really can't dumb it down much more. Now the BP thing happened outside of the coastal waters of LA so it was under federal jurisdiction. The thing I find most interesting about this was the huge sums of money the current administration accepted from BP in campaign donations and then that same administrations people looked the other way on BP's safety issues. In fact it was also that same administration that really worked hard to supress the full extent of the spill and went so far as to impede clean up operations by state and local agencies and private volunteers. I wonder why no one was outraged by that? *Don't get me wrong on my first point. There are many of you I do enjoy trading posts with, Wals, Monte, WoD, Calax, Pop, Enoch, Hurlie, Gifted, I could go on. But there are others who I think are either knee-jerk contrarians or are just plain closed minded.

I just LOVE how mkreku & junai are going on about the "American" perspective when 90% of the posts in this thread are not from Americans. In fact only two Americans have opined in this thread, well three now that I've stoped lurking. I just found their particular psycosis amusing. Anyway, carry on children, I'll go back to lurking.

I bought FO:NV today. I'd say my weekend is booked solid now.

First off, Obamacare is not UHC. It does not provide healthcare to anyone. In REQUIRES that everyone purchase health insurance want it or not. Then it subsidizes the cost by allowing lower income people to purchase insurance at a discount from the soon-to-be created "exchanges'. To pay for that the government raises fees and taxes on insurance companies forcing them do drive up premium costs on their regular paying subscribers causing the costs of HC to triple for the regular working Joe who has a group policy through their employer. Since the government now requires the HC insurers to cover every ailment from birth to death and allows kids to stay on until their 26th birthday most (including mine) have doubled or tripled their deductables and instituted caps on benefits. So the working Joe is paying double or triple for half the coverage. And if you choose not to purchase insurance (remember there used to be a word "choose" back when this was a free country?) then the IRS will come after you and throw you in jail, enslave your children, burn your house and murder your pets and all the other things they do so well. Actually I think it's just some hefty fines but you get the idea. Wow, isn't this great? Thanks Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Next time you want to help us why don't you really help us...and don't. Now as for taxation,if you tax something more, you will have less of it. Increase capital gains taxes you will get less investment. Less investing meant companies have less capital to run their business. That leads to retrenchment, which leads to layoffs, which leads to unemployment. If you increase personal income taxes then people have less money, less money means less spending power so they buy less. That means companies sell fewer products, earn less revenue, and pay less taxes because taxes are based on revenue. To grow the economy you need to encourage people to buy and sell. As the eceonmy grows the government revenue grows beacuse transactions are taxed, sales are taxed, revenue is taxed, value is taxed, etc. Rasing the tax rates on all of these things causes their volume to go down. It is self defeating. Lowering the rate causes the volume of these things to go up so even though the government gets less from each taxable action there are many many more actions to get revenue from. It's called the Laffer curve, it is not new. I realize some of you are incapable of cramming a viewpoint you have knee-jerk hostility to into your narrow little minds but if if you ever care to expand your knowledge I reccomend reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" y Thomas Sowell. He is without question one of the greatest economic minds of our time. Warning, for those of you who think Keynes was God, your head will explode if you read this book.

I am making vension chili in the crock pot. I seasoned it with garlic, salt, chili powder, and it has two white onions chopped, one green pepper, one red pepper chopped, five jalapenos and one small habenero, plus a pound of red beans and a pound of ground venison rump. It's starting to smell good too. I'll steam put some white rice to pour it on and enjoy with a glass of Guiness.

I bought Geroge W Bushs memoir Decision Points at the airport in Dallas this morning, I made a fair start of it on the plane. It is actually very interesting reading. I've been thinking about getting a Kindle or Nook. Does anyone here use them? Like then? Hate them? I have well over 2000 books on six bookcases in my house, it's getting a little ridiculous.

Can't sleep. I'm going to Dallas in the morning, which is like three hours from now. I really hate flying. Not because of fear, just hassle. Anywho, when I took this job they said there would be little travel and all of it regional. That has not turned out to be the case. I'll be in Dallas for two days and week after next I have to go to Mordor-on-the-Potomac (aka Washington DC) for a new training class on the new FCC spectrum licensing and use policies which I'll bet are identical to the old ones. I'm ready to just resign, sell the house and land and move to some small dirtbag town in the middle of nowhere and open a bait and tackle shop. Nah, not really but it would be a lot less hassle.

I had my usual breakfast, three asprin and three cups of black coffee. For lunch a six inch sub from Subway. But dinner, now that will be blackened catfish with steamed zuccini & home made cornbread. I can't wait! Oh, and of course there will be liberal consumption of domestic beer before during and after dinner, it is Friday after all!

Well, over all the self identified "Tea Party" candidates had a mixed bag of success. They got some big wins in Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Wisconson, and PA but the three biggest prizes, Deleware, Nevada (had Angle managed to defeat Harry Reid for the Nevada Senate seat the Tea Party would have become a permanent politcal force) and Oregon got away and they really were not that close. Going into next year I think they will be viewed as a force that you don't take lightly but certainly not one to be feared. As far as how Teap Party enthusiasum aided Repub prospects in general, that is hard to say. But I think it certainly made a difference. I do think the Repubs would have retaken the House anyway but margins would not be so great.

Actually I think all judges should be appointed by the appropriate executive (President for federal, Governors for State) and confirmed by the appropriate legislature but be subject to retention votes every 4-6 years or so. The only exceception would be US Court of Appeals and Supreme Court for obvious reasons.

Thats easy to understand when you consider this: THIS governments work is to inflict injury on 70% of the people in the country with the idea that it might somehow benefit the other 30%. So far it has not. When you find yourself in the group being injured a government that does no work at all will be a refreshing change.

Ahhhh divided goverment is back again. God bless political gridlock, because the government can't hurt us if it can't get anything done. Seriously, having all the power of the Federal Government in the hands of one party in NEVER a good thing, no matter what your politcal persuasion is. As far as folks outside of the US are concerned, just move on, nothing to see here. The US will not change as far a foreign policy is concerned. Obama is still the President, for a little bit longer anyway.

This does not happen often but I agree with you on this. Although for judges I think it is all together proper and even necassary for them to face a retention vote every four years or so. If a judge is viewed as soft on criminals or issues rulings that a a little off the legal reservation there must be a public remedy for them. They have a lot of power and there needs to be a check on them other than the appeals process because no every kooky ruling will get a shot at appeal or fair treatment if it does get one.

I voted today. HUZZAH!

You know Aram, what bothers me the most about what you just wrote. When I was a kid one did not find cheat codes at web sites. All one found at web sites was spiders. I think this one comment finally launched that midlife crisis I've been flirting with.

Sluggo, ask yourself "What would Shryke do?" I think the answer is obvious, get them all together with a lot booze and have an orgy.

Wiki entry Trailer here. Anyone going to check this out? I saw the trailer for the first time today. I looks like it might be good.

Yet they continue to vote in governments that do precisely the opposite of that. It hit the news here a little while back that the Obama admin tried very hard to keep the BP Oil Spil quiet, and tyhe was slow to do anything about it or about BPs handling of it. Then it's revealed that he accepted almost $100k in capaign contributions from BP. In fact a reporter was fired for pointing that out. I laughed for a week when I heard that. Here is the "hope" and "change" everyone voted for. Hows that all working out? Like I said, we will have the government we deserve and the first step to Oligarchy comes when the ruling class no longer believes it is accountable to those they represent. In the US we passed that point earlier this year. In Eurpoe they are doing it now with the EU.

I'm not saying it will happen but it certainly CAN happen. And right off the top of my head I can think of dozens of modern exampes where individual rights are trampled in other countries without so much as a pause. Now, think this through for a moment. Suppose we were to call a Contitutional Convention today, what do you think the probable outcome of that would be? Heck Calax, if you and I were the only delegates to attend do you think that with our poltical differences we could come up with a new constitution we could both live with? I've been trading posts with you for years now and I think well of you but personal amicability does not ensure political compromise. Now take you and I out of the mix and add hundreds of strangers, many of whom are suspicious of each other for no reason other than that there politics ARE different. Not at all. You are making the same assumption that a strong central government is needed for our national idenetity. I do not believe that would be the case at all. Our national identity does not come from some joint fealty to Washington, but from our shared history, culture, language, values, etc.

I'm hearing a lot of people say "the Constitution is outdated, it does not refelect modern times, it was never intended for a nation so large and diverse". What then is the remedy? Ignore it? Discard it? Misconstrue and distort it? There has been a lot of the latter to tell the truth. All of our basic rights, endowed by our creator are affirmed in the Constitution. If it can be side stepped, distorted, or ignored then there is no law, no affirmation of rights, and I suggest you begin buying guns. I have made this argument many times over Gun Control, Free Speech, Property Rights, if even one aspect of the Constitution can be ignored does that not render the entire document worthless? Can you not then simply ignore any part of it the government of that day finds inconvienient? Yes, and yes. Even if no more than lip service it paid to it (and when you look a that travesty of justice Obamacare it did not even get that) it is all that stands between us and at best Oligarchy. At worst Dictatorship. In truth I really think that is exactly where we are heading anyway. The American people seem all to willing to surrender their heritage, their liberty, and the freedom and dignity that is their birthright for "free" healthcare, and "green" jobs and homeland security. We will have the government we deserve. If the American people are willing to become slaves to the state, the leftists, liberals, and progressives are more than willing to be masters. For my part, they will have to kill me.

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. 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. This is not actually codified into law in any way. 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.