| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 05/13/2011 : 04:12:52 AM
|
I don't think either Congress or the presidency will reclaim the Constitution, unless they can get some political mileage out of it. We've had Nancy Pelousy ask a reporter who questioned the constitutionality of ObamaCare being forced on us. She replied, "Are you serious, are you serious?" So much for the Congress interest in the Constitution. One could rightly point out that this was only one side of politics, the Democrats.
Before then, GOP Bush, the younger, declared the Constitution to be "just a piece of g**d*** piece of paper." So, there is bi-partisan refusal to obey the limitations of the Constitution.
Ron Paul described himself in the 2008 debates as the "Champion of the Constitution." Insofar as anyone in federal office agrees with Paul, we will regain our Constitution, and apply the severe limits it has on the federal gov't.
One could logically ask, why doesn't Congress demand its power back from the president. It was stolen from them decades ago, and some might say it happened during the Civil War.
I would love to see only formal Declarations of War come, as required, come from Congress. That is akin to the people declaring wars. Presidents making war happen is something our Founders were against, having seen that king making war was not the best way to determine if wars should be fought, thus the inclusion of Congress having to do that, as advocated by Madison.
If that were the practice today, it would have saved us a lot of money, that we borrowed and had printed. Madison's words are hauntingly true.
I don't think we should declare war, because there is not much of a large scale military need to go after the terrorists, as it is a more a intelligence oriented thing. Using the massive military capablities against terrorists would be like nuking one's front yard to kill some weeds. They have to be pulled out over time, and with highly selective means. War will only inspire more terrorists. In that process, though, we ought not to go outside our constitutional limits that protect our freedoms.
I don't see Hamas as an American concern. They represent anger from the decades of abuse of the Palestinians, in my mind, based on international, unbiased figures. Let's say that almost everyone in a nation is quite happy with life. Would that be a breeding ground for people to become violent? I think not. Seems to be not logical that a contented people want to give up their lifestyle and go out and die for a violent group. To the contrary, the Palestinians are a desperate people, and under those circumstances, anybody would be angry enough to want to fight back. It's simple human nature, and a survival instinct. Hezbollah is not an American concern either. I am trying to think of anything in particular that they have done to us.
There are truly some hotheads out there with a plan against us. The main idea is to return our foreign outlook to what our Founders gave us - no allies, and no special priviges for any country. I see more massive assaults on other countries as a reason to breed more terrorists. For every person who has witnessed our military killing their loved ones, there is a reason to want to strike back at America. It's an endless loop. It's our fate for the decades to come unless we finally "get it."
It is most strange that the most gifted people regarding good government are routinely ignored. They were our Founders. The only oddball was Hamilton when it came to understanding America's true nature. We are still fighting the struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton and do today, to a large degree.
We've been quite Hamiltonian and it hasn't been working. The shape we're in today is the worst we've been in for a long time. Debts and deficits that will make our children into slaves, out of control politicians, the internationalization of America, wars that know no end, welfare that is decidedly inefficient in taking care of the truly needy and has cost us trillions over the decades, and so much more will help sink America, both financially and physically.
Each American owes not less than about $225,000 for all obligations. That includes each baby born today. Some people call that progress, but I call it slavery. The insanity must stop.
Is the Tea Party up to it, or can the Libertarians influence thinking around the country? Can the "new style conservatives" get together with the liberals and save this country? Only if the people grow up and wise up, and demand the power-hungry, anti-Constitutional merry-go-round come to a halt.
Unfortunately, not enough pain has been felt yet. Only when it becomes palpable enough for everyone, will there be some action taken. The thing is, what kind of action will be taken? --more spending, or financial rationality?
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/13/2011 : 12:17:49 PM
|
The Founding Fathers divided about 50/50 between the Hamiltonians, and Jeffersonians, Washington eventually went with Hamilton, while Jefferson went into opposition. This was the origin of the Democrats and Federlists. Appeal to the FF getsm both sides.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 03:59:44 AM
|
Hamilton was Washington's trusty aide in the war to expel the British. He came to depend on Hammy. Jefferson was highly valued by Washington. The latter did not like political parties, but rather favored choosing the best of who was out there. Parties and Washington were not a match. It's hard to have seen the very dignified Washington get hot and heavy over parties.
Unfortunately, we are Hamiltonian today, with all of his/its manifold problems of scheming and conniving. I'd rather have the quiet America, with a low-spending government that leaves people alone, unless they are harming others, or are taking their property, plus being a trading partner to all the world, and without the accumulation of enemies gathered from interventionism and alliances. That is good government in the American sense.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/18/2011 : 02:20:13 AM
|
Here is a fun little quiz, sponsored by the libertarian folks. Instead of just the usual axis of liberal-conservative, this one adds a vertical component, which makes more sense.
Just click on the bubbles that represent what you honestly think.
You don't even want to know what I scored. Almost off the charts!! Haha.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/19/2011 : 09:53:00 AM
|
Poor old Newt Gingrich. He had a lucid moment and called Paul Ryan's budget like he saw it - a radical piece of right-wing social engineering. From the Tea Partiers' reactions, you'd have thought he'd farted in church. They were on him like piranhas on a drowning goat. He's finished. He always struck me as the Republicans' Bill Clinton: shrewd, calculating, self-absorbed, and essentially amoral.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/20/2011 : 02:49:21 AM
|
Pretty good assessment, Doc, or should I say good diagnosis. Gingrich is one weird bird. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians don't like the guy, so where is his base, besides at Area 51 in Nevada or some other cryptic place? Beats me.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/20/2011 : 08:16:48 AM
|
Technically, his "base" only had to consist of a couple of majority-white districts in Georgia. As long as he kept them happy, he kept getting re-elected, and in a Congress without term limits, longevity equals power. He was a ruthless power broker in the mold of Lyndon Johnson, and with Tom DeLay set up the K Street Project, which pressured big lobbying firms to hire prominent Republicans, many of them former House staffers. This system allowed favored lobbyists essentially to write legislation favorable to their clients, and opened up a huge money stream for the GOP, which went unmatched until Obama discovered the Internet.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 03:03:00 AM
|
Newt is certainly a controversial figure. For the GOP in 1994, he was quite instrumental with his "Contract with America," which helped the GOP regain power in the Congress. Since then, from a west coast point of view, he slid downhill to the point that Californians, with the enormous problems, started to pay more attention to the Newt-meister. He projected his internationalism onto the GOP, and now embraces the mandatory parts of Obama health care plan.
One can like or dislike Obama's plan for health care, but when Newt supported goodly chunks of it, that raised the ire of a lot of the GOP. Seems that Newt has some bullet holes in his feet.
Speaking for myself, I don't like lobbyists, and other pushy organizations that want more than their fair share of say-so in goverment. Both parties have, over time, been engaged in this sort of corrupt operation.
My favorite guy is Ron Paul. He accepts no lobbyists' contributions, and they know this, and thus don't bother with him. He has a clean image, and the college crowds love him, at least a lot of them do. But, he twists the GOP leaderships' noses out of shape, because he is his own guy. Newt could learn much from him regardng integrity, but won't because of his propensity for the lack of ethics.
It's hard to think up more ways Newt could ruin his image. Maybe he could run some Nigerian scams, commit polygamy, get caught with heroin, have an affair with Nancy Pelosi, or contribute to the Re-elect Hugo Chavez campaign.
I don't doubt Newt's creativity in finding more ways to irritate more folks out there.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 11:58:36 AM
|
Took Warmskin'a test 70% personal, 100% Economic.
Gingrich isn't the Rep. Bill Clinton, he's more equal to Hubert Humphrey, spouting a thousand ideas. Many of which are crackpot, and he never follows up to implement the good ones.
After a week, I'm out of the Hospital again.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 06:44:24 AM
|
Sorry to hear you had to go to the hospital. Been there myself for 3 surgeries, and one stay for having too low sodium in my bloodstream. Where was Naturist Doc when I needed him?
The sweetness is in leaving the joint, no offense to Doc, here.
So, Balataf, you're 85% libetarian on average. Wonder where the 15% statist preferences lie. I used to be 50-50 conservative, but am now 100% libertarian.
The site used to give the test-taker some examples of each type. Mine are Clint Eastwood, Thomas Jefferson, and Drew Carey.
I like the concept of the four dimensions rather than just the two-dimensional idea. That way you end up with the Hitlers, Stalins and Idi Amins in the same category - few freedoms if any.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/23/2011 : 5:26:19 PM
|
I've taken a 6-dimensional similar test of 225 questions some 14 years ago. It measured
Economic issues: free market vs government control, property rights
Social Morality issues: such as abortion, gay marriage, gambling regulationm death penalty.
Social Responsibility issues: Draft, disaster relief, Famine aid,
Race/Ethnic/nationality issues: personal and cultural equality
Consensus oriented/libertarian: self-direction vs authoritarian and established rules
Scientific/Artistic issues: social value of various disciplines.
Most questions impacted several areas. Updating for today, the question of fighting the Taliban's continuing attacks on little schoolgirls by blinding them with battery acid would count as
socially compassionate, non-ethnic orientation & (sex) equality, and anti-authoritarian, but not economic or artistic. The Social Morality aspect is also abhorrent.
////////////////////
From the Chicago Tribune 5/23
Obama is on the horns of a dilemma. As a candidate, he said the president does not have the power to go to war on his own except in cases of actual or likely attack. But if he were to ask Congress to authorize the Libyan intervention, he would probably be rebuffed. So he's chosen to simply ignore the law.
Like the court case in my 5/9 post, in which the existing Congressional law allows a birth certificate from East Jerusalem to be filed as Israeli, this is a test of the "Imperial Presidency" breaking the law. That's what the State Department is doing on this point, trashing the Constitution. We need clearer Constitutional re-authorization on all three fronts.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/23/2011 5:36:15 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 01:48:54 AM
|
When the 2012 primary season gets underway, we will all get to see how those voting citizens who own of the Republican Party line up. There are a group of factions jockeying for support, each with differing agendas, vying to guide the Party's slow evolution. Among these forces are the Christian Right, the Establishment, libertarians, small business, neocons, big business, and others.
Several groups, strongly overlap the Tea Party surge. mostly Christian Right, libertarians and small business. The Tea Party was a rebellion bvy those groups against the Establishment, against big business, and against the Neocons. There are other, smaller groups, too.
At this moment, the Christian Right is the strongest single faction, and they are likely to control the nomination. This presents the problem of defeating whatever coalition the Democrats can put together. In order to do that, the Republicans need to be united, with a program or platform, with appeal to, not only all major factions, but attracting enuf Independents and swing voters to win.
There are a dozen Presidential elections since the New Deal, in which parties have been stripped down to their core supporters. Stevenson 1952 and 1956, Goldwater, Nixon and Humphrey 1968, McGovern, Carter 1980, Mondale, Bush 1988, Dole and Clinton 1996, This stripped-down range is usually 40 to 45 percent. either way for both parties. That leaves a rough 16 percent in the middle, whose loyalties shift with the attractiveness of current candidates and temporary programs. About one voter out of six, and they tend to be the least ideologic ones, or else they would be committed to a party.
Democratic Party politics contains a similar set of groups, with differing programs and positions. Green voters, labor unions, ethnic Blacks, hispanics, gays, anti-military voters, and more form a more diverse coalition rhan Republicans have. In fact, the Democrats have ALWAYS been more split this way. But I believe that Obama will be able to hold his alliance together.
It all comes down to the question of how wide an appeal the eventual Republican nominee can make, and how much of a majority can be cemented together from these varied Republican factions, including widely-miscellaneous independents.
The winner always has to offer a good balance of things to enlist different voter groups.
|
Edited by - balataf on 05/31/2011 01:55:26 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 01:03:22 AM
|
Obama tells us in 2007 that removing our soldiers from Iraq after his innauguration was something we could take to the bank. Sadly, he did not follow through with that, and thus there is no money in the bank.
Ron Paul was correct in his prediction of Obama's failure in this regard. So, one has the GOP and Democrats not appreciating Paul's thoughts. The question that is provoked is - where are all the anti-war protestors? I find very few, save for Dennis Kusinich and Ron Paul.
It does not make much sense except that the GOP and the Democrats feed out of the same trough, as it were.
Here is a video about this prediction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo&feature=feedrec_grec_index" target="_blank"> br / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo&feature=feedrec_grec_index
You may have to click on the second part of this link, if it appears in double.
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 01:40:59 AM
|
The 5/31 Congressional vote on the debt ceiling was a disaster for the Administration.
The result was 97 Yes, to 318 No for a debt increase without any compensating cuts.
Republicans: 236 No
Democrats: 97 Yes, 82 No, 7 abstained.
The Tea Party spirit goes marching proudly on. This undercuts the chances of a Tea Party movement outside Republican ranks, where it is concentrated among Christian Right, libertarians and small business factions.
Democrats from swing districts are feeling the pressure directly from voters.
corrected 6/1
|
Edited by - balataf on 06/01/2011 11:16:58 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
General Political Discourse
