|
Post by brandon on May 9, 2007 1:44:32 GMT -5
Why should we have a national ID card or why should we not?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 9, 2007 19:30:35 GMT -5
There's an old Month Python routine in which random people on the street- all played by the Pythons of course- are asked how they'd raise new tax revenue in Britain.
One of them responded that he'd "raise taxes on all foreigners living abroad."
I'll give you a sec to digest that.....
OK...how is it relevant to this topic?
Well, if you watched the Republican Presidential Debate, you saw a bunch of guys who made a complete mess of a question on the topic of a National ID card.
Was it....Tommy Thompson maybe?...who first said that he advocated a national ID card but meant that only foreigners entering the US should have to carry one? I think another candidate called him out of that quickly, saying that we already have that- it's called a "passport".
I believe I understand what Thompson's idea was- that all would-be immigrants to the US, on a temporary or permanent basis- would have to have issued by the US (none of this Matricula Consellar BS) a tamper-proof card, probably meaning it would be biometric, that contains the results of an extensive background check (including criminal background, if any) and the information from such could be scanned and accesses just like a credit or ATM card.
Of course, that's different from a national ID card for American citizens.
I don't share the level of distrust with the Federal government that some here do, so I'd have no problem with having a national ID card for everybody. I just son't see the spetre of a black trench-coated Gestapo wannabe popping out of the shadows and demanding to "see my papers".
Instead, I see a card that might have all the information presently contained in my Social Security card plus my driver's license and maybe even containing emergency medical information/treatment guidelines and other critical information (like whether I am legally permitted to vote and where and if I am legally permitted to buy or own a firearm). It would have to be tamper-proof of course and as impossible to duplicate as technology permits.
I think I understand and respect privacy concerns some might have. I just think that security concerns outweigh privacy concerns in this case (and I know I'll catch flack for saying that...I can see Franklin's quote being tossed back at me already).
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 9, 2007 22:34:48 GMT -5
Well, it's kind of like the entire pistol permit issue: I'm all in favor of Uncle Sugar getting involved in that if it means I have a true FEDERAL permit to pack heat. I can see the need for a national ID card, but the whole "mark of the beast" contingent would blow up.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 10, 2007 3:40:31 GMT -5
I think I understand and respect privacy concerns some might have. I just think that security concerns outweigh privacy concerns in this case (and I know I'll catch flack for saying that... I can see Franklin's quote being tossed back at me already). Here comes Franklin ......."Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin Amen!!! "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778) Good Point Tommy! "Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other." -- Thomas Jefferson "Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson "We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest." -– Thomas Jefferson Here are a couple of Jefferson's friends "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana "Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it." -- General Douglas MacArthur Here is a famous quote from "Major Solomon" leader of the UN-incarcerated Free Militia of Alabama: "Never Trust WOMI because he is a NEOCON. That man can't be trusted when it comes to politics, That man will fall victim to everyone of Franklin's prophecies." 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. THE NATIONAL ID CARD WILL NOT PROMOTE LIBERTY! Whatever you register to the government is eventually if not immediately owned and taxed by the government: Property, Vehicles, Guns, Churches, Businesses and your identity...... The National ID and Veri-chips are precursors for the long ago prophesied "mark" ..... Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast.... 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 10, 2007 4:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 10, 2007 7:32:33 GMT -5
Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast.... 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. This is where you messed up. Never quote prophecy when you are speaking out against something. What is biblical prophecy? The definition of most prophecy has to do with "prediction" which leaves room for error but biblical prophecy is promises by God. That means it WILL happen. So by fighting against something in prophecy, you are saying "I have the power to hold back God's promises". Good luck. Do I think the national ID card is the mark spoken above above? I don't know, but by you associating it with it and then being against it, you're essentially saying you doubt God's Word. Did you see the Omen? I saw the original but forgot most of it (I was very young) but I did see the remake. At the end, the father tries to kill the child, the antichrist. But the father was killed instead. What if the child had been killed? Yes that is only a movie but if this were to happen in real life, and the child had been killed, would that not change a biblical event? Would that not then put all of God's promises in doubt? But just like the movie, it ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 10, 2007 10:16:46 GMT -5
I think another candidate called him out of that quickly, saying that we already have that- it's called a "passport". This is true. Greencards and visas are already tamper-proof. So, why do we need a national ID card? Someone will still make fake cards and sell them to illegal aliens. The only people this will affect are American citizens. Also, some of you say that you can't see the government ever abusing this power. Perhaps not immediately. But then in a few years someone suggests that we put scannable magnetic strips on the back. "For security reasons," maybe you'll have to start scanning your card to get into sporting events or to get into the airport or to rent a car or pass over a toll bridge. Don't think that would happen? Just think... the 16th Amendment was sold to the American people in 1913 because no one had any idea that it would ever become the abused power that it is. It was supposed to be 1 or 2 percent of income for most citizens. Even if there is the slightest chance that the power would one day be abused, why would you go along it?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 16:43:03 GMT -5
solomon-
You really should stop using words the meaning of which you do not know if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone other than yourself.
Just a bit of advice.
I usually don't offer sage advice to those with which I disagree but, knowing full well as I do that you'll reject it, my offer to help you better yourself is given knowing no such betterment of an opponent is likely to occur.
I'll also offer a correction as to your misuse of the Franklin quote.
Franklin was deploring the fact that some, including his very own son, were choosing to cast their lot with the British, believing that such a decision would guarantee them saftey, rather than allying themselves with the revoloutionaries who, if they won, would ensure their liberty.
You're welcome.
As for Olberdork "eating up" Newt Gingrich.....as soon as I can stop my uncontrollable laughing at that image, I'll respond to it.
Olberdork is an editorialist. By that I mean he avoids at all costs any chance that someone might actually challenge his views in such as way as he- Olberdork- would have to defend them. If one's views are so totally ridiculous as Olberdork's are, one must take any steps necessary to avoid having to defend them.
You, of all people, should know that.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 16:48:52 GMT -5
brandon-
Put in a physiological context.
Why not remove the heart early on in life? Chances are pretty good that it's continued presence will, eventually, have a negative effect on the host body- heart disease, heart attacks, etc. So wouldn't we be better off just removing it to mitigate against possible future maladies?
Same thing with governmental powers.
Oh I'll grant that ANY power given to the government- or, more likely, taken BY the government- >CAN< be abused. I don't think any rational person could deny that.
But that's why we have elections, and that's why we have checks and balances in the Constitution- both of which work just fine, thank you very much, even as the Left tries to tell you they don't.
Who, among the Presidents, have had the greatest opportunity to become tyrannical, through intent or circumstance (or both)?
Probably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Did we 'survive' their 'tyrannies'?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 10, 2007 17:56:24 GMT -5
Hey! You take that back about Keith.... Sure he looks a little dorky and his left leg is about 4 inches shorter than his right so that causes him to lean to the left a little. Olberman leans to the left from what I heard (gun control) but then again so does Bush's Border Policy, Gun Control (he was for the Assault weapon Ban= AWB) and no concept of individual liberties.
I'll even say that the republicans that were in the majority for 6 long years and did not repeal any of the Welfare State, Gun Control and taxes or fix the Borders are worse than Olberman because they profess and want people to believe that they are "conservatives".
Broken clocks are right twice a day. So people like Rosie and Olberman (I think Rosie is significantly worse than many lefties) are right from time to time. Something we as conservatives should do is admit our wrongs when our hand is called on them even if it was called out by someone from the left. Humility is a good quality.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 19:13:42 GMT -5
As a news pundit, Olberdork is a pretty fair sports reporter.
He lacks basic honesty (among other things).
Hannity...Rush....Ingraham....none of them make any pretext of being objective when it comes to thier political ideology and how they view the issues. If you watch them, you know that you're going to hear their Right-wing viewpoints expressed.
And you know what? That's perfectly OK with me. They're pundits- television editorial writers or columnists, if you will- and so the bar for objectivity is quite low for them.
Olbermann's views are basically indistinguishable from MoveOn.org and DailyKOS- two of the most virulently Leftist 'mainstream' websites. Olbermann could be reading Talking Points issued by George Soros 9and who knows...he might be!). That's fine...so long as you frely and openly admit that you are a far-left Liberal and your viewpoint originates from just such a perspective.
Yet Olbermann consistently claims that he is totally objective and without an agenda. And with a straight face (or at least as straight a face as he can manage), no less!
The trouble is that MoveOn.org and DailyKOS have claimed him as one of their own and praise him for his unrelenting Leftist attacks on anything and everything Republican and constant omission of any flubs by anyone on the Left.
Olbermann might just be the only person that actually believes he is objective. Neither his supporters nor detractors think he is.
While I still wouldn't like or agree with him, I might summon up a smidge of respect for him if he just admitted that, "Hey, I'm a Liberal and I want Democrats to kick the Republican's ass from now until the Cubs win the World Series and I'll do whatever I can to help." He'd at least have told the truth for once in his life.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 11, 2007 19:05:01 GMT -5
Probably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Did we 'survive' their 'tyrannies'? No, we got the New Deal and lost the powers of the Tenth Amendment. Did we "survive?" Yeah, the same way Russia "survived" communism and Germany "survived" the Gestapo. We survive the everday tyrannies. But the real question is... "Are we free?"
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 10:04:53 GMT -5
I tend to think that some people, in their righteous pursuit of and love for 'freedom' , have grown dangerously close to embracing anarchy.
After all, is not anarchy- the absence of all rules and order- not the ultimate freedom?
Russia did survice communism and a much more free and democratic society emerged (Putin's rollback of those freedoms nonwithstanding).
Germany did survive the Gestapo and a much more free and democratic soiety emerged (and has lasted to this day).
As many quarrels as I have with FDR and the New Deal, to compare those 'tyrannies' with those perpetrated by communism and nazism is to cheapen the term 'tyranny'.
I used the term as an argumentum ad absurdum, meant to illustrate the lack of rationality on the part of those who make such charges against the United States, pointing out that the US on it's worst days and under it's 'worst' Presidents is still immeasurably better than other nations under their worst leaders and circumstances. The comparison, done seriously, should be offensive.
We survived Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton....we'll somehow muddle though all the 'damage' done by George W. Bush to our civil liberties.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 12, 2007 10:11:46 GMT -5
NO, anarchy is NOT the ultimate freedom and NOBODY here has advocated anarchy in any way.
YOU though are guilty of trying to falsely protray peoples inent by even mentioning that silliness.
when there are NO laws then the strong can take from the weak as often as they desire, that clearly is NOT FREEDOM at all.
people ARE supporting a strictly LIMITED role for government, somewhere there is a document calling for just that oh yeah, it is called the constitutiton!
the supporters of freedom today are supporting the same concepts as geroge washington etal.
YOU on the other hand are supporting HUGE government far beyond the limits placed on it by the FF!
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 12, 2007 10:33:12 GMT -5
solomon-
I love those quotes. You know I do. Classic and telling of the truth.
brandon-
I love that exchange.
WOMI-
You know how I respect you and your positions, but the party rhetoric is wearing thin. Republicans good. Democrats bad. Hell, they're both terrible. The parties are the major impediments to our being truly free.
What I have noticed is that each party is exhibiting the emergence of the "cult of personality". For the Dems, it's Moore, Rosie, and the "one sheet of toilet paper lady". For the Repubs, it's Rush, Hannity, and the "doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected to anything" Gingrich. He's smart, but slimy.
The only thing separating the two is a measure of class.
The Dem talking heads babble and spout bromides about that of which they know nothing.
The Repub icons spend their time apologizing for the fact that Bush is an abysmal President, thus disavowing their own principles of accountability.
But at least they are decent dressers.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 12, 2007 10:34:36 GMT -5
Oh. More importantly, NO NATIONAL ID CARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 11:00:04 GMT -5
NO, anarchy is NOT the ultimate freedom and NOBODY here has advocated anarchy in any way. YOU though are guilty of trying to falsely protray peoples inent by even mentioning that silliness. when there are NO laws then the strong can take from the weak as often as they desire, that clearly is NOT FREEDOM at all. people ARE supporting a strictly LIMITED role for government, somewhere there is a document calling for just that oh yeah, it is called the constitutiton! the supporters of freedom today are supporting the same concepts as geroge washington etal. YOU on the other hand are supporting HUGE government far beyond the limits placed on it by the FF! bill- Two things: Are you SURE no one's supporting anarchy here? I've seen people make the case that folks should be able to own hand grenades here on this very Forum. Need a hand grenade to deer hunt, do you? You mention the need for at least some laws to protect the weak from the strong. Yet doesn't that conflict with things such as legalization of all drugs (stoners will have to get the money to buy their next fix somehow and predation on the weak is one way to go about it), as some have advocated here? But I guess that, since the weak can own and use hand grenades, that would be a moot point.... Which leads me to my second point: To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, 'One works with the government one has rather than the one one might wish it to be.' You're working from an ideal that, sadly, no longer exists; you'd be far more productive and successful if you worked from what is, not from what you wish was. I've stated this before, but, as it bears relevance to this discussion, I'll say it again: Do NOT judge Conservatives by George W. Bush.
George W. Bush is NOT a Conservative.If you want a more accurate representative of true Conservatism, look at: Duncan Hunter (strong national defense) Tom Tancredo (secure borders) Mike Huckabee (Fair Tax) Sam Brownback (pro-life) Is it too bad that no one candidate embraces all those positions at the same time and with the same fervor? Well, yeah it is. Still (sorry deo), when one looks at the stable of candidates the Democrat party has to offer, the choice should be very easy to make.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 11:25:24 GMT -5
I'd contend that they- or, rather, one of them- are the only guarantors of your freedom.
I suppose you can guess which one that is....
If party rhetoric is pointing out that Democrats, as they are now (certainly no one can argue that they have not always been so), are not only not helpful to the country but are in fact DANGEROUS to the country, then I'm guilty.
When a Third Party, built from the ground up, emerges as a viable alternative- circa 2030 or so- assuming I'm still around, I'll take a look.
Until then, I will look at the Party under whose stewardship I can see the causes I find most important advanced and enacted.
The difference is that Rush, Hannity, etc. aren't setting the agenda for the Republican party.
You can't make that claim regarding Rosie, Mother Sheehan, etc. and the Democrats.
I'll support Gingrich if he runs, but I think that he does have a real drawback:
unlike Gore and Kerry, about both of which this charge was laid, Gingrich really IS too smart for the average voter to understand.
He'd probably be more effective as a Veep to a less cerebral candidate.
Platitudes can get you everywhere.
2006 proved that.
They doth protest too much.
Frankly, I don't think there's all that much for them to apologize for.
You can argue that the war hasn't been fault 'properly' and I'd tend to agree with you. Mistakes were made all around.
But it was the right decision to remove Saddam- in fact, had Clinton done what he should have, he'd have taken care of business (remember: it was during the Clinton Presidency that the concept of regime change in Iraq became official US foreign policy) and the Middle East would have begun its transformation 4 to 6 years earlier than it did. Clinton preferrd to use the military only when polling data showed the public was behind the mission- rahter than when US national interests required it- and so an opportunity was lost under Clinton (imagine that!).
What the polls don't like to tell you is that well over 70% of Republicans support Bush and the effort in Iraq. I tend to believe that number because don;t you think that, if support among Republicans dropped to 50% or less the MSM would trumpet the result as yet another blow for President Bush?
I think you and I agree that Bush has done many, many things wrong. And I think no more of him on those issues than you do.
But, on what is clearly the most important and crucial issue of our times- dealing with the Jihadists- he's been our version of Winston Churchill (albeit less articulate) standing virtually alone against the NAZIs.
He's right on more issues -and right on the most important issues- than he is wrong, and that's why I support him.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 12, 2007 12:33:57 GMT -5
I tend to think that some people, in their righteous pursuit of and love for 'freedom' , have grown dangerously close to embracing anarchy. After all, is not anarchy- the absence of all rules and order- not the ultimate freedom? So, advocating a return to the days of a small, nonintrusive government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers means anarchy in your eyes? The Founding Fathers were anarachists, you say. Nice argument. You say I cheapen the term "tyranny." The federal, state, and local governments stole $29,800 out of my paycheck last year and gave it to other people to buy votes for both Democrat and Republican politicians. That's tyranny whether you admit it or not. Just because I'm free to leave my house and walk around outside without being beaten with a stick doesn't make me free. People in the most tyrannical countries can leave their houses, go to restaraunts, hold jobs, and go to church without being gunned down by soldiers. It doesn't make them free. You say that I cheapen the term "tyranny." However, I say that you cheapen the meaning of "liberty."
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 18:21:46 GMT -5
brandon-
No, the Founding Fathers weren't anarchists.
They were, however, products of the times in which they lived.
Had they known that communication at great distances would become virtually instantaneous or that travelling long distances would be a matter of hours rather than months, I think their views regarding the primacy of isolationism would be changed.
Their views on "foreign entanglements" made sense...until about 1900 (or perhaps 9/11/2001). Technology changes everything.
So you're outraged that you paid taxes last year.
Join the club.
You can quibble with the amount you pay and with the purposes on which said tax money was used. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You want your roads fixed- taxes. You want a military that guards your right to speak out- taxes. You want police and fire departments to handle emergencies- taxes. You want forces available to deal with natural disasters- taxes.
I could go on, but I'd hope you get the point.
Deal with what is rather than what you wish was.
Yeah they're free to go wherever they want in North Korea, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Venezuela, in Cuba, in The Sudan, in China, in.....
I'd urge you to go to any of those countries and speak out against the government there as you have here.
It's been nice knowing you....
So yeah, I say that your use of hyperbole regarding the United States and "tyranny" does indeed cheapen the term. Simply put, you have no idea at all what oppression is if all you have to measure against it is how you live in the United States.
I think I've made a pretty good case on my end.
You've still got some work to do making yours.
The mere fact that you can come to this very public Forum and post threads speaking ill of this country (to the extent that you do- I see far worse on DU, DailyKOS and the like), even using your real name if you wish and totally without fear of repercussion or retribution by the government pretty much invalidates your whole theory.
Wish I could remember who said it, but there's a quote that goes something like this:
"Democracy is clearly the worst form of government ever devised by man. It is better only than all others."
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 13, 2007 3:58:50 GMT -5
Need a hand grenade to deer hunt, do you? no....fishin'.....
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 13, 2007 8:17:47 GMT -5
brandon- I know that Hamilton would definitely support that one. Not completely accurate. You're suggesting that the conclusions they drew were based solely on the events of their day. There was, in addition, much thought and study of history employed to validate their concerns that ultimately led to their final conclusions. What? One can crawl or run toward the abyss. The product is the same. Technology changed nothing. technology- 1. the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area. 2. a capability given by the practical application of knowledge. The pace at which change was effected by the application of technology changed things. The pace at which certain technologies evolved changed. The fact that hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of years of practical wisdom pretty much defined what was prudent regarding involving one's self in the affairs of other people changed NOT. The defining characteristic of our Founders was their understanding and analysis of history coupled with an understanding of human nature. If "x" happens 6 times throughout a particular phase of history, then it's likely to happen again, thus suggesting that nothing much changes. Human nature sees to that. Only the names and faces change. No. The thoughts of the Founders would not have changed. I personally am not outraged that I paid taxes. I'm outraged when I see what I bought. Personally, I don't want any of these things in their present form nor in the manner in which they are currently paid for. ........and that baby isn't mine, either. A quote from the Great Rumsfeldo! Take it to heart and settle for second best. Tyranny is defined as oppressive power exercised by government. There are, to be sure, varying degrees of tyranny, and yes, the forces of tyranny are alive and well in this country today, with the prospect of even more to come. Eminent Domain abuses, tax withholding, gun control legislation that unashamedly flies in the face of the Second Amendment, unconstitutional wiretapping, judicial disregard for the Constitution by socialist courts, etc., all represent forms of tyranny that we contend with today. Examples of the "more to come" might be the alphabet-soup trade agreements that only serve to further erode our manufacturing base to the delight and enrichment of those who profit from sending said overseas. Illegal immigration will likely lead to oppressive measures taken by the government to make us all accept criminals into our society. SPP and the North American unionists will attempt to force us into a conglomerate society that will bring our standard of living to that of Botswana on a good day. Granted, we don't yet experience a level of tyranny like that seen in the Third Reich, but it's coming soon..........to a theater near you. Classic. Absolutely classic. Sorry, WOMI. You both make great cases. Nope. While I hold the right to free speech dearly, and yes I can basically voice my opinion without fear of being met with police truncheons over my head, this right has become mere crumbs for the masses. The powers-that-be allow us to vent. They realize full well that they have put shackles on our right to private property, perhaps the most significant of our rights. All other rights spring from our right to hold property, without which we have no base to lay claim to the others. How can I say this? It's called property tax. It's called Eminent Domain abuse. It's the fact that I'm restricted in protecting my property. "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." John Adams 1787 Theory re-validated. Democracy in the form of a federal republic such as ours is a wonderful thing. Maintaining it in its intended form is the problem. Modern thinking devoid of historical perspective is the chief culprit of said.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 13, 2007 12:34:02 GMT -5
Allright.
I amend my statement to read that they were the products of their times AS WELL AS a product of their assiduous study of and appreciation for history.
Still, I think my point that they did not and cound not conceive of a time where communication of ideas was virtually instantaneous and travel reduced by a factor of hundreds is a sound one.
I'm not blaming them, not by a long shot. These were extraordinarily prescient individuals. While Franklin may have 'invented' electricity, he didn't forsee television.
Rather easy to plan for contingencies when they take months to come about; rather more difficult when it's a matter of hours.
I think they'd say "Be the best neighbor you can be." rather than "Ignore your neighbors to the greatest degree possible."
I concede that I am oversimplyfying their views. But I don't think their call for isolationism, nor the call for it by some today, is pragmatic, possible or even desirable.
Perhaps I should have said the application of technology changes everything.
When a message took three months to go from Paris to Washington, isolationism was possible; when such a message takes three nanoseconds, it isn't.
I often paraphrase the quote because it is particularly appropriate to address the fantasy world some people want to live in today.
The want to roll the government back to 1790's size and scope (and cost).
They want to retreat within our borders and cut off as much interaction with the outside world as possible (preferably all of it for some).
They think that, somehow, if we just ignore the Jihadists, they'll ignore us.
They want to cut off all trade with the rest of the world and/or erect such punitive protectionist trade barriers as to make foreign goods unaffordable, ignoring the fact that foreign governments will reciprocate in shor order so that we have no place to sell our goods (aside from the domestic market...but unions assure that domestic goods are artifically overprices due to their demands so what is left for the average American to buy?).
Sure...it's a nice fantasy. Every bit as nice as my fantasy of sitting on a beach in Tahiti sipping Mai Tais with Jessica Biel.
Both have the same chance of happening (though if Biel only knew me....).
Deal what with is rather than what you wish was.
Your voice of comparative sanity is lost among the chorus of doomsayers we have here and elsewhere.
Their hyperbole- that Bush = Hitler, etc.- does their cause- (supposedly) of advocating liberty- the same disservice that Al Gore's idiocy does to the climate change rationalists. Sure, being a radical brings attention to your cause...but is that attention approbation? Or hysterical gales of laughter? And which is more desirous?
There are those who are convinced that we are now in the Fourth Reich. Of course, their's no rational basis- NONE- for making such a claim, now or even when Clinton was President.
Those people have zero sense of history and no sense of proportion or they'd know that making such claims is sheerest lunacy.
No apology necessary.
I suppose that when one (not you) is desirous of no rules at all, even the US seems like Hell itself.
I'd urge people who think the US is becoming the 21st century version of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to actually read what conditions were like- or talk to someone who actually lived under those regimes- so as to learn enough to make an informed, rather than emotional, comparison. Read Solzenitsyn. Get a copy of "Reading Lolita In Teheran". Go to Irshad Manji's blog and read not necessarily what she wrote (though it's great) but read what people still living in nations that practice tyranny- real tyranny- post there anonymously for fear of governmental retribution.
Then get back to me about the alleged infringement of our liberties here in the United States.
Who raises your property taxes to buy votes and to use of things not even remotely connected to property?
Who cuts property taxes and gives you back more of your own money to spend as you see fit?
And just who/what infringed upon the right to own property?
The least democratic and least accountable branch of the Federal goverment, one (at least then) dominated by ideological liberals.
All the more reason to vote Republican so that these liberal justices can be replaced with those who will interpret, not re-write, the Consitution.
We're >ONE< vacancy away from having an Originalist SCOTUS for the next, what, 20 years.......or one vacancy away from having a liberal activist SCOTUS for the next, what, 20 years.
It all depends on who wins in 2008.
Thank you for making my case for me, albeit perhaps unwittingly.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 14, 2007 10:22:34 GMT -5
You want your roads fixed- taxes. You want a military that guards your right to speak out- taxes. You want police and fire departments to handle emergencies- taxes. You want forces available to deal with natural disasters- taxes. I could go on, but I'd hope you get the point. I want all of those things, yes. But you're intentionally leaving out a few things. I suppose in hopes that it helps your argument. All of those things you just listed make up just a small block of what my taxes pay for. Are you unaware that over 50% of our tax money goes to Social Security and socialist healthcare programs alone? That's right... over half of what I pay in taxes goes directly to someone else as welfare. Think of the amount of money that goes towards foreign aid and how much is spent on pork projects to buy votes for politicians. In other words, just accept the government without question. You are completely correct. Just because North Korea treats their citizens worse makes it okay for the U.S. government to shit on Americans as long as it's "what's good for us." Oh dang. You beat me to it. I forgot to say "I win! I win!" first. Okay, you win then. You act as if I owe something to the government for "letting" me post in these forums. Oh highest federal government THANK YOU for your patience with my ingratitude! I am forever thankful for your mercy! Since I love liberty instead of government, let me try to explain to you how the liberty lovers think... The People are the rightful owners of this country. We are given certain rights by our Creator and then delegate some of our God-given authority over to a government to protect us from invasion and violence. The ones of us that think this way believe that the government is subservient to The People. The government does not grant us our rights and we have no reason to kiss the government's ring for allowing us to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 14, 2007 11:53:28 GMT -5
brandon-
Don't I know it!
This is exactly why I've said over and over that George W. Bush is, at his core, >NOT< a Conservative. Don't judge Conservatives by the example he sets.
Not at all.
Let me make the analogy this way:
Many of the most ardent pro-lifers are angry that Bush didn't immediately get Roe v. Wade overturned, and some believe that he's failed them because he didn't.
They don't understand that Bush has relatively little power to overturn Roe. About all he can do is to nominate Constructionist justices to the various courts that will rule against abortion, from the worst parctices like partial birth to the more accepted ones, thereby setting precedent. Eventually, stare decisis will be on the side of those opposing Roe.
OK...how does that fit in with your plan to scale back government?
It's the same process- elect politicians who will first limit the growth of government spending, then flatline it, and then actually begin to cut it. Elect politicians who will overhaul, not expand, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Look for politicians who will further reform welfare so as to get more people working rahter than sucking off the government teat.
In other words, work towards your ultimate goal from within the existing framework- "what is"- rather than working from the idea- "what you wish was".
No, but you have people that post here who seem to believe that there is essentially no difference between the United States and Iran in terms of personal liberties. Sorry, but I don't see it.
So work to change the system staring from how the system functions NOW.
I don't say that anyone should be kiss the ring of government for guarding the liberties we have- though a bit of appreciation whould be nice.
Comparing our lot with that of proably 90% of the people in the rest of the world, we do have it pretty good.
When's the last time you saw someone from the United States say, "Gee whiz...the US is pretty repressive. I think I'll go to China where I can be free!" or a person from Dallas saying "Gee...I hate my job here in Texas. I think I'll go to Mexico where I have a real chance at making something of myself!" ?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 15, 2007 0:08:54 GMT -5
OK...how does that fit in with your plan to scale back government? It's the same process- elect politicians who will first limit the growth of government spending, then flatline it, and then actually begin to cut it. Elect politicians who will overhaul, not expand, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Look for politicians who will further reform welfare so as to get more people working rahter than sucking off the government teat. So tell me why your list of presidential candidates does not include Ron Paul? He would not be held without power because of an adversarial congress because he would be able to use the line-item veto to cut the pork spending in the appropriations bills. I appreciate your statement about Bush not being a conservative, but he is your avatar... BTW, I've enjoyed the conversations you've offered.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 15, 2007 10:18:27 GMT -5
brandon-
Thankee!
As have I.
There's no doubt that Bush has done alot of things wrong.
However, on the one issue that I believe to be the most important issue of our time- fighting the Jihadists to keep the US safe- he's done an outstanding job. He gets that issue right.
Dr. Paul would have to get a Congress in which he has very few supporters to approve giving him the line-item veto. Clinton couldn't get them to give him that power even with a Democrat Congress, nor was Bush able to get Congress to grant him that power even with a Republican Congress.
Both Partys want their President to have the power but neither one wants the other Party's President to have the power.
And that might be an over-generalization, come to think on it.
I'd bet that there are some politicians in Congress who would not support any President getting line-item veto power because it would negatively impact their- Congress'- ability to buy votes to stay in power.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 15, 2007 13:19:24 GMT -5
Dr. Paul would have to get a Congress in which he has very few supporters to approve giving him the line-item veto. Clinton couldn't get them to give him that power even with a Democrat Congress, nor was Bush able to get Congress to grant him that power even with a Republican Congress. I also wasn't aware of this ruling concerning the line-item veto: "U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional."Still, I'd say that a deadlock between Congress and the President is a good thing. If they're not passing more pork and socialist programs, then the country at least doesn't continue to get worse.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 15, 2007 17:18:16 GMT -5
In that, you and I are in complete agreement.
|
|