Jump to content

Guard Dog

Members
  • Content Count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    160

Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. Just read it on RealPolitics.com. Fred Thompson, former Senator, radio host and some time actor is probably getting into the race. Right now he plays the DA on "Law and Order". Here is a man who had a senate voting record that impresses me. He is what I would call a contructionist and he has a reputation of being a straight shooter. He will make an interesting candidate if it is true. Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham are behind him already.

  2. [Maybe the Federalists need to make a come back.

    Oh I agree. But they would never win an election. Now everyone asks the candidates "What are you going to do for me?". The Federalist answer is "Cut your taxes and get out of your way so you can take care of yourself." That asnwer will not fly today and more is the pity for it. It started with LBJ and the "Great Society" programs but asking people to take personal reponsability for themselves is not politically correct anymore.

  3. Romney would be the worse thing for this country. If you want to go back to the 19th century, vote Romney. I prefer to live in the 21st century thank you very much.

    I'll admit, I know very little about Romney, but how do you come to that conclusion?

  4. Sometimes those limits need to expand, Guard Dog. I don't think the founding fathers couldn't imagine the level of technology we have today, or such a population that we do. The framework of the Constitution is sound, but it does need to compensate for modern times, especially at the pace we as a people are advancing.

    I believe they foresaw that. That is the reasoning behind the 9th and 10th amendments. If the real federalists like Jefferson and Madison were alive today the would not be in favor of taxing people to pay for Uncle Sam doing things the Constitution does not allow it to do. My opinion only of course.

  5. The letter they sent me was bizarre-- it's 4 pages long, but no paragraph was more than 2 lines, each one setting out Sen. McCain's viewpoint on a particular issue in the most general terms possible.

     

    I guess McCains supporters have a short attention span. :lol:

  6. While I do agree somewhat that the old Jefferson line but I would slightly amend it. "The government that governs least yet fulfills the needs of its citizenry governs best."

     

    Be careful what you wish for Sand. To quote another great American "The government that is powerful to do anything for you can take everything from you". The government should only operate within the limits placed on by the Constitution.

  7. The US communist party is a joke obviously, their endorsement or lack of the same means nothing.

     

    True enough they have no political pwer. But if they see something in Clinton and Gore they like, maybe we should take a look at why.

     

    As for Hillary, she had some ambitious plans for health care and education while she was the lady macbeth behind the man, amd I applauded them.

     

    Lady MacBeth is hardly complimentary, Gorgon. :lol:. I opposed those things she stood for. Strongly, for reason you already know.

     

    Nevertheless, to me, her bid is only one step away from the nepotism of the Bushes. Only shows how deeply insular the political power base has become that in so enormous a country, the latest 4 presidents could wind up being very closely related indeed.

    Oh man do I agree with you here. Since 1980 we have had either a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot or in office. Enough is enough already. Anyway..."Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow..."

  8. No one uses the word 'liberal' but a republican

    I'm not a republican and I use that word where applicable. There is nothing wrong with calling a duck a "duck". Especially if it quacks. Edwards is what we call a "Limousine Liberal". In other words he advocates the economy stifiling, freedom supressing liberal policies that he will never have to live by.

     

    Hillary Clinton is a Liberal with a very big L. She was a disciple of Saul Alinsky when she was in college, and her Senate bid in 2002 and 2006 were endorsed by the US Communist Party (as was Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000, link here is you would like to see:US Communist Party. If she gets elected, God help us all.

     

    Obama seems to be a big government democrat in the LBJ tradition. Not an appealing choice but better than the other two.

     

    I'm with Enoch, if Bill Richardson were to run, he is the one dem I would vote for.

     

    And I agree with Taks, ideally the House would have a strong dem majority and the Senate would have a strong repub majority then it does not matter who the President is. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The government that governs least governs best".

  9. So, according to your logic, the U.S. military does not have the authority to launch operations to rescue American civilians trapped in hostile foreign nations-- that would be defence "of the citizens," not of the United States.

     

    What can protecting the welfare of a country possibly mean, if not protecting the welfare of its citizens? What can defending a country possibly mean, if not the defense of its citizens?

    Of course they have the AUTHORITY to do so. Or rather the President has the Constitutinal authority to order it. It does not assign the OBLIGATION to do so. But your example has nothing to do with your original point. As to your second point you an I are coming to a difference of opinion on the interperetation of the word "welfare". To me the welfare of a person is best served when they have the means and enviroment to take care of themselves. And no, I do not think the Constitution gives the authority to tax me into the ground to give me healthcare I do not want. If an amendment is passed and ratified, that is different.

  10. My Vets office has it's own lab. Does surgery on premises. They have their own anesthesiologists, and even their own dispenary and pharmacy. My doctor has NONE of those things. Heck most hospitals contract out their lab work because of the amount of insurance the law requires them to carry for it.

     

    The government has made a bloody mess out of things.

  11. You do have a point, I guess but if you get rid of the FDA and DHHS, deregulating what we have already, I can see it causing more problems because at that point there would be no accountability nor any controls of any kind against malpractice or corporations making dangerous drugs that can do more harm than good.

     

    There is always a legal recourse against malpractice, and against drug manufaturers if needed. Besides, as heavily regulated as it is, is the healthcare system perfect now? Are there bad drugs now? Is there ever medical malpractice now? Of course there is. So what good has come from regulation?

     

    Besdes, I tend to believe free market economics will keep prices low and quality high, just like they do in veterinary medicine.

  12. Well, it is better than nothing that a good chunk of us have. When a kid dies due to a toothe ache because his mother can't afford to go to dentist or have insurance to cover it there is something seriously wrong with our society.

     

    Beyond that I do think that we do need to get back to our roots, back to the government as prescribed in the Constitution.

    The problem with healthcare in America is the costs. But almost 45% of the cost is regulatory compliance. So the government is creating a BIG part of the problem you guys are asking it to solve. If we get the FDA and DHHS out of the way, cost of service will drop. Add in tort reform for punative damages and it will drop again.

     

    Here is a GREAT example of how things should work. Last November I noticed one of my dogs was having trouble walking. So I checked her over and found she was in pain in her abdomen. I call the Vet, she gets me in there the next day. They examine her and find she has a hernia. Two days later they perform a simple surgery to repair the tear. The whole thing cost $450 and was over in two days.

     

    Now if that were me in pain, it would take weeks to see the doctor. weeks more to shuffle though the bueracracy, and then an outpatient surgery that will probably cost more than a used car. Why is there a difference? There is no federal and very little state regulation of veterinarians. US health care once worked exactly like my example.

     

    As the great American Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is the problem, not the solution.

  13. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

     

    What could be more appropriately considered "general welfare" that bodily health?

    The general welfare of the United States. Not the welfare of the citizens. I believe that is the duty of the citizen to take care of themselves. Not ask me, or you, to do it for them.

  14. I think the Constitution needs to be expanded on issues of education and healthcare. The federal government, as well as the state governments, are responsible for the care and well being of its citizens first and foremost. A universal healthcare system that aids in the skyrocketing costs of medicine from the federal govenment is needed because the individual states just do not have the funds to do it themselves.

    It does not need to be expanded. When the powers that be want to do something, they do it and the Constitution be damned. The Supreme Court has really become a political institution in a way it was never intended to. If it were worth it's salt half of the laws created by FDR and Congress during the 30's would have been DOA and we would not be staggaring under the tax burden of today.

     

    As for healthcare, we need to start another topic on that one. I have a feeling you and I will make a pretty good debate over that. But short answer, if they try t pass an amendment, fine. If it carries, fine. I'll abide by it then. But you better believe I'll vote against it. If you want to see gvernment run health care in action, look at the VA. That is what the government will do to US healthcare. No thank you.

  15. Changing the tax system is a good start. but what really needs to be done is to reign government spending in. Right now Uncle Sam spends money like a drunken sailor who won the lottery. It is doing things far beyond the scope of it's power as described in the Constitution. For example, the US Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There should be no such thing as these agencies. The Constitution does not charge the Federal government with the tasks of either. In fact, the 10th amendment proscribes the govt from involving itself in this and specifically assigns these tasks to the states. Yet the spend billions of dollars per year doing jobs that could be dne much cheaper and more efficiently at a local level.

     

    The same deal with Universal Healthcare. I'll support that as soon as someone shows me what clause in the constitution empowers the govt to provide healthcare. There is not one. Now if a state wanted to do it, that is up to the voters in that state to do it and PAY for it.

  16. My impossible dream was to run the Iditarod. Probably never happen. Or get elected to Congress. The Iditarod is a little more likely.

     

    Scuba diving is easy and fairly cheap Astr0creep. And unless you live in Nevada somewhere, there is probably a place to go somewhere near you.

  17. Is it true that the greatest percentage of that tax burden arises from payments to the Federal Reserve Bank? A PRIVATE consortium?

    No, the Fed is not funded by congress at all. In 2005 (I do not have the 2006 numbers) the US government spent 1.731 Trillion dollars.

     

    34% went to just running the government. Federal payroll, office expenses, running all of the different departments, administrative costs, etc. It was the biggest piece of the pie. So the biggest tax burden comes from just paying these people to get up and come to work everyday and be a general pain in the a**.

     

    After that, the next biggest was 27% for the military and homeland security, CIA.

     

    Next was 20% past expenses such as national debt, VA admin, government pensions, etc.

     

    Next was 13% into the "general government" fund which covers the costs of running all the government programs out there such as HUD, HHS, NASA, etc.

     

    Last was 6% for Physical Resources. That covers the costs of Dept of the Interior, Dept of Transportation, FCC, FAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Park Services, DOJ, etc.

     

    So you see the biggest taxpayer burden is not all of the services, it's the cost of the government itself. HR expenses account for more than the military and infrastructure combined. Tell me this is not getting out of hand.

  18. In the US we have income tax, FICA tax, import tax, sales tax, estate tax, property tax, non-ad valorem tax, tag tax, sin tax, excise tax, capital gains tax, ad valorem tax, school tax, withholding tax, corporate tax, highway tax, water tax, license tax, gasoline tax, alternative minimum tax (F*** you Bill Clinton), CMV tax, E911 tax, utility tax, tax, tax, tax......

     

    The colonial government was over thrown over a 3 cent stamp tax. WTF happened?! The sick thing is, if the Federal and state govenments restrained themselves to govenring withing the restrictions placed on them by their respective Constitutions, none of this crap would be necassary. And don't trot out the argument that taxes are lower in the US than elsewhere. They are, but that does not mean they are not too damned high here now.

     

    If we held elections on April 16 this would be a VERY different country.

  19. In all seriousness, Iraq isn't the most fantastic place to practice religion, but then neither is the deep south of america

     

    C'mon Calax. Do you really consider the southern states to be on par with Iraq and Israel? If so you really should take a drive down here. I think you will find it is just like the rest of the country.

  20. Right, I mean Rush says so, so its got to be true

    No. Guard Dog says so. Forums are about voicing your opinion, not parroting someone else.

  21. Sure beats propaganda radio. Plus I like it when I can be fairly sure the person on the other end doesn't hate me.

    Here's a challenge for you, tell me what you listen to or what you think I should listen to and I'll tell you why it makes absolutely no sense for me to listen.

    NPR is left wing propaganda radio. I listen to "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition" somewhat frequently and they have a steep leftward slant IMHO. I have never, ever heard them run an unflattering story about any democrat. Nor have they ever run a complimentary piece about any republican. But then again, there is no politically unbiased news to be found anywhere these days. For commentary I listen to Neal Boortz (the best syndicated news/commentary show on radio IMHO) and Walter E Williams whenever he is guest hosting someone's show. As for what I think YOU should be listening to? Whatever the heck you like. Based on the things you post I'd say you are probably a liberal so it does not surprise me you listen to NPR. People tend to seek out shows that "fit".

     

    But if you really want my recommendation, get Sirius and put it on Channel 31, Radio Margaritaville. (or just click here: Radio Margaritaville) Besides, listening to political talk all the time is bad for your health. Trust me on that one.

×
×
  • Create New...