American 2008 Election

[Zelgadis 638]

Well, the news is in and Clinton routed Obama in West Virginia.

And the funny part is that nobody seems to care.

In other news, a Democrat won a special election for Congress in an ultra-super conservative area. See article here:

On Libertarianism, I honestly don't get it. I've looked into it rather a lot and, on a fundamental level, I see little difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. That could perhaps be why no Libertarian party in the world is in power right now. Of course, if I'm mistaken in my assumptions, please correct me, but that's the way things seem from my point of view.

However, that said, I could be a little Libertarian and I do believe both the US and Canada could use a dose of Libertarianism. I do think we've gone a bit too far in the "nanny state" department. I do think that certain safety features in cars should be required, for example. But the current rate of legislation is taking things to the point where I expect cars will eventually be made of pillows... Oh, and a new bit of legislation in the US congress right now wants to ban all cigarette flavorings except menthol. They say it's because teenagers like flavors. Um... right... News flash: When a teenager decides they want to try smoking, there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it, so just leave it alone...

ISF

[krbe 193]

Libertarians like property, anarchists do not. Libertarians are also found of courts, both public and private like today, anarchists are not. If you decide to liberate a bottle of vodka by breaking the glass at a liquor store as an anarchist, the libertarian will point out that someone owns that bottle, and that he may not be deprived of it. But they are both permissive of most, though. Here in Europe, libertarians would be viewed as "hard-core" liberals (from liberty).

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: zelgadis

On Libertarianism, I honestly don't get it. I've looked into it rather a lot and, on a fundamental level, I see little difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. That could perhaps be why no Libertarian party in the world is in power right now. Of course, if I'm mistaken in my assumptions, please correct me, but that's the way things seem from my point of view.quote>

No, there are a lot of differences between the two.  First and foremost, anarchists believe in no government.  Libertarians do not believe in an absence of government, but rather more of a government that more or less leaves well enough alone.  More or less, the thinking is that if something is working fine, the government doesn't need to step in and mess with it (like it enjoys doing).

Then, to give another example, there's also what krbe said about private property.

With myself and being Libertarian, the things I'm looking for is a government that doesn't tell me when to get up and tie my shoes, what I can and can't do with my health, and other stuff that's done in an attempt to increase government control of day-to-day life.  I'm perfectly fine with there being some government control to see to things like fair treatment of employees, keeping the scales at the grocery stores honest, and other stuff.  But, to cite the example of a local city council, government doesn't need to be going around telling people what time they can and can't receive shipments or that their building must be made out of a specific kind of brick so that it'll look one way as opposed to another.

[Zelgadis 638]

Well, it's all point of view, isn't it? To me, there's not much leap from the Libertarian form of less government to the Anarchist notion of no government. The Libertarian version goes much, much too far for my tastes. From what I've seen, Libertarianism goes far beyond simply opposing telling people what kinds of bricks they can build their houses of.

ISF

[Voar Tok 4]

OK, so what have you seen?

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: zelgadis Well, it's all point of view, isn't it? To me, there's not much leap from the Libertarian form of less government to the Anarchist notion of no government. The Libertarian version goes much, much too far for my tastes. From what I've seen, Libertarianism goes far beyond simply opposing telling people what kinds of bricks they can build their houses of.

ISF

quote>

In the simplest of terms, Libertarianism is Social Liberalism with Economic Conservatism. The best of both worlds really. Libertarians believe in small government, one that is there for protection mostly, not a whole lot of restrictions; Things like money, defense, public safety, etc. are the only purposes of government. I like Libertarianism because it allows for a more independent lifestyle, as opposed to Liberalism. Also it is in favor of 'state's rights', which helps tweak laws to satisfy specific regions, instead of a federal government slapping a law on the whole nation, regardless of who supports it/who doesn't.

Libertarians are getting more and more supporters. A lot of Conservatives have drifted to the  Libertarian party in recent years. The problem is that the party is not very well organized, nor does it have sufficient financial resources to really 'get noticed'. Some Libertarians are more radical than others, just like any other political party members.

[Meg 368]

Thank you for that explanation, Frankie.   I understand it, except for one sentence.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I like Libertarianism because it allows for a more independent lifestyle, as opposed to Liberalism.  quote>

I'm not following you there.  What do you mean?

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Thank you for that explanation, Frankie.   I understand it, except for one sentence.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

 I like Libertarianism because it allows for a more independent lifestyle, as opposed to Liberalism.  quote>

I'm not following you there.  What do you mean?quote>

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). The terms are commonly confused. Liberalism is the practice/policy of Liberals. Libertarian looks like Liberal, but they are completely different (aside from the Social Freedom aspect).

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

I was always under the impression that American Conservatives would be described as Economically Liberal (Smaller Government) and Socially Conservative (Restricting personal freedom, e.g Gay Marriage)

So presumably Libertarians would be Economically and Socially Liberal with less economic and social restraints.

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama I was always under the impression that American Conservatives would be described as Economically Liberal (Smaller Government) and Socially Conservative (Restricting personal freedom, e.g Gay Marriage)

So presumably Libertarians would be Economically and Socially Liberal with less economic and social restraints.quote>

Economic Liberal means big government, i.e. Socialism (at least by US terms). An economic Conservative means little government intervention, i.e. Capitalistic.

So Libertarians, in a more technical sense, are Social Liberals, Economic Conservative, but with a hint of Liberal in the economic sector (like emission regulation, or other basic business restrictions).

Even though Liberal means 'freedom' in the Social sector, it is the opposite in the economic sector.

[krbe 193]

As TQL is European, there's no wonder that the American liberals / libertarians poses problems. Over here, libertarians would mean those who favour the night watchman state; i.e. no government bodies are going to control if the scales at your local shop is set right, or that the local restaurant won't serve deadly food (because it would be regulated by the market at the end of the day). Social liberalism would here mean liberalism (i.e. not American socialism), which acknowledge the right to health care and education (with the effects that would have on taxes), since they reject the notion that charity would correct deficiencies. Since conservative European parties often need help from populist rightist parties, social liberals have tended to side with the socialist side because of vast differences between the populists conservative values and the permissive social liberalism.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

This is probably why I am an economic liberal.  But I'm afraid you err in one part.  Economic liberalism isn't designed to make everyone dependent on each other.  We already are dependent on each other.  There is really no such thing as complete independence.  It's the very definition of civilized society.  It doesn't work if we don't work together.

Libertarianism seems... well, I hate to put it this way, but "selfish."  From my point of view, it looks like the kinds of people holed up in their homes and their property screaming, "Mine!  Go away!"  It is much too materialistic for my tastes and ignores the inherent interdependence of human civilization. 

And if people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr are examples of Libertarian leaders, then I really want no part of that particular philosophy.  Those two scare the living daylights out of me.  Much more so than any Republican ever has.

On that note, here's a little bit I found in the Washington Post today:

Former Republican Representative Bob Barr, best known for his leading role in the impeachment of President Clinton, announced Monday he was seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination and immediately became the front-runner. At first blush, this would seem to be bad news for John McCain. Barr would seem most likely to draw away votes from disgruntled Republicans who could not bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. "If he wins the White House," The Asscoiated Press reported, "he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce -- as well as at overseas military bases." Like all true libertarians, Barr draws here from positions considered liberal or left-wing and also from positions considered conservative or right-wing. He would thus, in principle at least, draw anti-Iraq votes from the Democrats and anti-spending votes from the Republicans. My hunch is that he hurts the G.O.P. more -- just as Ralph Nader hurt Al Gore in 2000 -- and that in a year when even many Republicans are unhappy with their president and the status quo, he could get a significant vote.quote>

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

Okay . . .  just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?

or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

zel: Ron Paul, scary? IMO he's the closest to the Founding Fathers in his positions. He proves that Obama has not cornered the market on 'truth', but far he's more of a threat to the establishment then Obama can even imagine.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

Okay . . .  just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?quote>

Stuff like garbage collection and emergency services are among things that most anyone, including the average Libertarian, would consider essential to the good of the community.

or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

quote>

This one is kind of questionable where people would stand because there's no immediate threat to lack of such a service and the opinions on it's value are mixed.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan zel: Ron Paul, scary? IMO he's the closest to the Founding Fathers in his positions.quote>

Well that's great in theory. Unlike the Founding Fathers, however, Ron Paul is an irrelevant old hypocrite, with a disturbing amount of support from the white supremacy corner, who wants to scuttle the world economy in order to return to his fairy tale vision of a country guided only by the pristine and immaculate constitution.

He proves that Obama has not cornered the market on 'truth', but far he's more of a threat to the establishment then Obama can even imagine.quote>

How is Paul a threat to the establishment? Because his supporters want to protest the legally chosen Rep nominee? Ignoring the voters makes him sound like much more of a part of the establishment then a threat to them.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

quote>

This one is kind of questionable where people would stand because there's no immediate threat to lack of such a service and the opinions on it's value are mixed.quote>

Really? I would think that the libertarians would take position 3, as if this park is built, it will deprieve others of their freedom (of doing what they want with their money). It its most extreme form, the spending would be used on military and police, as well as courts, while most restrictions would be lifted (such as trade barriers, zoning laws, restrictions against alchol, tobacco, drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc.).

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: manticorefan zel: Ron Paul, scary? IMO he's the closest to the Founding Fathers in his positions. quote>

I hear that a lot.  And nobody ever explains why he is so close to the founding father's positions.

But there's a problem with that argument for two reasons.

First, the founding fathers wrote the constitution more than 200 years ago.  It's a different time and our culture has evolved.  To do everything precisely the way they envisioned would be a mistake.  The second amendment, for example, was a good idea then.  It's a bad idea now.

Second, and most importantly, I highly doubt that the founding fathers were working towards an immigration policy of xenophobia and bigotry or a tax code that would put almost the entire tax burden on the middle class.  If they did, I'm glad I left! 

ISF

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

quote>

This one is kind of questionable where people would stand because there's no immediate threat to lack of such a service and the opinions on it's value are mixed.quote>

Really? I would think that the libertarians would take position 3, as if this park is built, it will deprieve others of their freedom (of doing what they want with their money). It its most extreme form, the spending would be used on military and police, as well as courts, while most restrictions would be lifted (such as trade barriers, zoning laws, restrictions against alchol, tobacco, drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc.).quote>

No, that's Libertarianism taken to the extreme.  Most people, like Ski said, and myself included, would be considered in the "Who cares?" category.  This is something that's particularly trivial, with the primary issue being whether or not to put the thing some particular place.

Originally posted by: zelgadis

Libertarianism seems... well, I hate to put it this way, but "selfish."  From my point of view, it looks like the kinds of people holed up in their homes and their property screaming, "Mine!  Go away!"  It is much too materialistic for my tastes and ignores the inherent interdependence of human civilization.quote>

How so?  Libertarianism does recognize the interdependence of society - that's part of the thinking behind cutting down on all of the government middle man.  People need to interact.  Let them do it in such a way that they're both mutually happy.  There's a saying about where Libertarians fit in the political spectrum:

Liberals want to control the boardroom.

Conservatives want to control the bedroom.

Libertarians don't want to control either.

The thinking works this way.  Say you have a class of first-graders all playing in a sandbox.  Liberals would be telling them (and this is solely a demonstration, not that a person identifying themselves as liberal would necessarily do this) that they need to build a mountain range in the sand.  Conservatives would be telling them to build a castle.  But both groups would be telling them what they are supposed to be doing and how.  Libertarians would be telling them that so long as they followed some basic ground rules, like not peeing in the sand, they can build whatever they want in there, including a dirt ramp and launching toy cars off of it.

Libertarianism is about the freedom to do what you want with your stuff, so long as you're following some basic ground rules.

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

Okay . . .  just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?quote>

Stuff like garbage collection and emergency services are among things that most anyone, including the average Libertarian, would consider essential to the good of the community.quote>

Exactly. What I was referring to is things like huge taxes to pay for easily-abused social programs.

The problem is Libertarians come in a rather large variety, I would think more so than the Liberal or Conservative groups. Libertarians are not exactly 'materialistic', but are of the 'leave me alone' type. It's about doing what you want to, within a set of guidelines or rules. No Liberals telling you that you must pay someone else's health bill, no Conservatives telling you not to buy beer on Sunday mornings.

I think that the 'founding fathers' were much more Libertarian than anyone will willingly admit, they did not intend for us to restrict ourselves quite as much as we do now. They may have been a bit 'radical' by today's standards, but it sounded like a great idea to colonist breaking away from a obsolete system of kings and queens.

Back to the presidential race....Hillary needs to quit. Obama needs to figure out how to appeal to the working class, and McCain needs to start getting his party more organized.

[Vandy 110]

Hi, All.

I've been lurking in this thread some time and have been quite interested in your conversations.  I've thought long and hard about whether or not I should post and, if I did, what tone my post should take.  Those of you are acquainted wtih me know that I'm a pretty "happy-go-lucky" kind of guy wh enjoys the camaraderie of chatting with fellow members on this great site.  However, many of us (myself included) tend to present a "PC Front" as it was described to me by a 'netFriend.  Consequently, I really don't want to present my PC Front in this thread.  Rather, I'd like to strip away the outside veneer and give you a view of the core Vandy and his values and beliefs.

I am going to repost a series of messages posted on another site which show very clearly (or, as clearly as you will be able to interpret) where I stand this election year.  I would warn you, though, for those of you who know me, this post might surprise and / or shock you.

Here are my comments (edited so the the flow of the comments makes sense reposted here and to keep the context clear):

---

Post #01

It is with some trepidation that I'm posting this reply.  However, I cannot stand in the shadows all my life.

I have always been a just-left-of-center Republican until this election year.  I purposely changed my party affiliation to Democrat in order to vote for Senator Clinton in the NC primary.

If she does not win the nomination, then I will be forced to vote for Senator McCain - a decision I'm not quite happy about.

Post #02

Normally, I follow the "Rule of Three" -- that is, there are three things you never discuss with people: Religion, Politics and Sex.  Note the heavy emPHAsis on normally...   

Nonetheless, I don't want to ignore your comments, so, here goes.

As I stated in my earlier post, I've been a Republican all my voting life  (Whoops!  Broke Rule #1 - Politics.).  However, as my God and Saviour knows (Whoops!  Broke Rule #2 - Religion), the past 8 years have left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

Okay.  All levity aside, I've really become disillusioned with the Republican party and with the values and doctrines for which they stand.  Couple this with the fact that I really do believe Senator Clinton would be good for the country and good for the people, I chose to change my party affiliation.

Having said that, I cannot in all good conscience vote for Senator Obama if he wins the nomination.  (And THAT decision, my friend, is one I WON'T talk about.)  If it comes down to a choice between Senators Obama or McCain, Senator McCain will get my vote.

I don't believe he is a George Bush clone, however; I'm not naive enough to believe he is the "all encompassing answer to what ails this country".  Nonetheless, I would prefer to see him in office is Senator Clinton doesn't get the nomination.

Post #3

[AUTHOR NOTE]

The following post was in reply to a prvious post about why the three "Rules" should not be avoided and should be discussed.

[END AUTHOR NOTE]

I've got to agree that you've made a very valid point concerning the three rules.  Stagnation from ignoring them can be equally as bad as the horribleness that can come from "wars" started by them.  And, quite honestly, that is from whence my comment comes.

I'm going to do something that I've never done before and that is attempt to strip away the veneer from the "outer shell" of Gary and give you a glimpse of the "private person" inside Gary.  This may or may not be an enlightening trip and may or certainly may not be on-topic f

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: zelgadis Well, the news is in and Clinton routed Obama in West Virginia.

And the funny part is that nobody seems to care.

ISFquote>

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had a series of interviews with West Virginia residents explaining why they did not vote for Obama. Priceless - yet scary - stuff.

"He's not the same color as us, and we're afraid of them." (seriously - an almost direct quote).

"I don't like that stuff with him and Hussein - and I've had enough of Hussein!"

Seriously - there are people like that out there, and they are registered voters? We're not going to elect a guy because because of his of his foreign policy, ideas on the oil crisis, or illegal immigration - it's because some of us don't like the color of his skin?

Give me a break. Every time I think we are taking a couple of steps forward, a few insist on taking huge leaps backwards.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

Okay . . .  just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?

or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

quote>

Just to provide an actual Libertarian's opinion on this, the "not with my tax dollars" option is the answer. I have no objection to a dog park existing. I do have an objection to the government being the one that sets it up. Those kinds of things which appeal to only certain groups of people and don't benefit everyone in general are best left to private businesses.

Because honestly, there are better things to spend people's tax dollars on than a silly dog park. Like doing necessary maintenance work on our infrastructure, and expanding upon it.

You don't build a dog park and people who own dogs will have to entertain them elsewhere, like they always have. You deffer maintenance too much and things like this happen.

Honestly, which is more important? That dogs have a place to run around or that a bridge not collapse and kill people? Tough choice, I know...

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote>

Okay . . .  just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?

or are we talking about optional things like (to pick an issue my community is currently quibbling about) the proposed dog park where:

 

- dog owners are saying "Yes!",

- people who live near the proposed park are saying "No!",

- others are saying "Not with my tax dollars!" and

- most are saying "Who cares?  Let me alone; I have real problems to deal with!"

quote>

Just to provide an actual Libertarian's opinion on this, the "not with my tax dollars" option is the answer. I have no objection to a dog park existing. I do have an objection to the government being the one that sets it up. Those kinds of things which appeal to only certain groups of people and don't benefit everyone in general are best left to private businesses.

Because honestly, there are better things to spend people's tax dollars on than a silly dog park. Like doing necessary maintenance work on our infrastructure, and expanding upon it.

You don't build a dog park and people who own dogs will have to entertain them elsewhere, like they always have. You deffer maintenance too much and things like this happen.

Honestly, which is more important? That dogs have a place to run around or that a bridge not collapse and kill people? Tough choice, I know... quote>

Well, I'm going to say, also as the fact that I am a Libertarian, that my choice there isn't the "not with my tax dollars" option because, well frankly, while I do think of it as a colossal waste of money, the answer lies more in what the general consensus wants to do with the money.  If they want to spend it on a dog park, that's their tax dollars.  If they can't agree on that, then don't build the dog park.  Right now, it seems like people can't agree on it, so I'd say that it'd be best to leave it alone, but ultimately, the people who's tax dollars are involved can try to get them spent anyway they want them spent.

[Jerebannus XVI 7]

Hillary should just quit already...Edwards is the kingmaker here and he's endorsed Obama, plus a Hillary aide has already hinted that she'll drop out of the race soon.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Seriously - there are people like that out there, and they are registered voters? We're not going to elect a guy because because of his of his foreign policy, ideas on the oil crisis, or illegal immigration - it's because some of us don't like the color of his skin?

Give me a break. Every time I think we are taking a couple of steps forward, a few insist on taking huge leaps backwards.quote>

While it may be curious and somewhat offensive to you or me. To a lot of Americans that don't take much notice of foreign policy, economics and various other things then those above remarks do play a role and will play on their decision on who they vote for. Lets be honest America is still a racist places in several ways, so its hardly as if all racism has gone from society. That would be lovely, but not going to happen for a long time.

It would be very very foolish for Obama to ignore those people and disregard them as bitter and backward, if he does not win those people over he does not get the White House.

Any way, some stories I stole from the BBC today.

Obama attacks Bush over Iran barb

Mr Obama accused Mr Bush a "launching a political attack"

Barack Obama has accused George W Bush of attacking him after the US president compared those in favour of talking to terrorists to Nazi appeasers.

The White House has denied that the remarks - from a speech to the Israeli parliament - were aimed at Mr Obama.

Mr Obama, who is the frontrunner to become the Democrats' presidential nominee, has argued in favour of negotiating with the Iranian regime.

But he has ruled out talking to militant organisations like Hamas.

'False comfort'

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals," said Mr Bush in his speech.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement."

Mr Obama responded in a statement:

I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you... it is not true in this case Dana Perino White House spokeswoman

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: JanYpe  How is Paul a threat to the establishment? quote>

 

The threat to status quo stems from the fact that the status quo is illegal in many ways, like the growth in the purpose of gov't to include things it was never given Constitutional authority over. Only those in power are threatened by putting things right. 

---

Originally posted by: zelgadis ... the founding fathers wrote the constitution more than 200 years ago.  It's a different time and our culture has evolved.  To do everything precisely the way they envisioned would be a mistake.  The second amendment, for example, was a good idea then.  It's a bad idea now.

Second, and most importantly, I highly doubt that the founding fathers were working towards an immigration policy of xenophobia and bigotry or a tax code that would put almost the entire tax burden on the middle class.  If they did, I'm glad I left! 

ISFquote>

 quote>

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

The idea of the Constitution as a 'living document' or is outdated is quite dangerous. quote>

errr . . . isn't that what the amendment process is for?  To change the Constitution?  

It's not an easy process and takes more than a simple majority to accomplish but it's not impossible either.  There have been about half a dozen amendments just in my lifetime.

(The last one is among my favorites but that is an off-topic digression.)

You obviously are a DWEM-aphobe. (Dead White European Male).  quote>

   He's afraid of dead white european males?   Let's not call each other names.  Especially ones that make no sense.

Now people want to claim healthcare is a right, but without any legal precedent or backing. Constitutionally, it isn't and never has been. quote>

um . . . who is saying that exactly?   Yes, most Europeans believe healthcare is a right but if that's how they want to run their countries, that is their business.    Which Americans are saying that healthcare is a Constitutional right?  I know many who think that the healthcare system needs to be reformed and basic care is a good idea but who is saying it is Constitutionally mandated? 

And I will keep my guns, thank you. Any candidate that wants to circumvent or abolish the protections of the Bill Of Rights isn't so much a candidate as a traitor. I would never vote for a office wannabe who espouses treason. Yes, treason. quote>

So the program to monitor telephone conversations without a court order is a violation of the 4th Amendment and therefore many people currently in office are traitors?

They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet so few honor that oath. quote>

There are those who regard it as just a piece of paper, which is sad.

Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, something he shares with a majority of the Supreme Court. As he has stated, our gov't cannot even fulfill the most basic of its Constitutional duties, and should not be taking on the burden of everyone's pet peeves in life. quote>

Out of curiosity, what kind of "pet peeves" are you talking about?

The 'other 3' just want to 'tinker with the settings' of the perverse machine we have built; only RP has the guts to point out that the very existence of the machine is wrong and unConstitutional.quote>

What exactly are you calling "the machine"?   If you are referring to the dominance by two political parties, I can certainly agree that they have much more power than the Founding Fathers envisioned.   I'd like to scrap both of them and start over, with more parties, each having less power than current two.

But is that "the machine" you are referring to?

I know I'm asking a lot of questions here but I'm having trouble following what you are saying.

[JanYpe 17]

The idea of the Constitution as a 'living document' or is outdated is quite dangerous. You obviously are a DWEM-aphobe. (Dead White European Male).quote>

Rubbish. The Founding Fathers didn't walk up Mount Sinai and receive the inspired word of God, they were men who happened to have picked up some cool ideas during the Age of Enlightenment. Like SkiGeek said; By including article five, the process of amendments, they clearly showed that they did not believe their document would fit all the needs of the country as a shining beacon of perfection for all eternity.

The US constitution, like most, is the basis on which a government can rule in name of the people. It is a foundation, not a prison. The only realistic way of governing is to, through debate and judicial procedure, continually check the legality of government actions against the document, instead of acting like the government are actors and the document their script.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: JanYpe  How is Paul a threat to the establishment? quote>

 

The threat to status quo stems from the fact that the status quo is illegal in many ways, like the growth in the purpose of gov't to include things it was never given Constitutional authority over. Only those in power are threatened by putting things right. quote>

I'm guessing that the Necessary and Proper clause in the first article of the Constitution doesn't count for much with you?

The idea of the Constitution as a 'living document' or is outdated is quite dangerous.quote>

The Constitution is a living document (if documents could physically live).  That's why the thing has an amendment process.  The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't possibly envision everything, and even if they could, at some point, we might want to change the thing.  It was a living document when they wrote the thing (for example, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution).  So, if you believe that the Constitution is not a living document, you would be forced to concede that changes to it, like the right to bear guns, are unconstitutional.  They're not.

And I will keep my guns, thank you. Any candidate that wants to circumvent or abolish the protections of the Bill Of Rights isn't so much a candidate as a traitor. I would never vote for a office wannabe who espouses treason. Yes, treason. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet so few honor that oath. quote>

FYI for anyone reading this thread, attempting to change the Constitution is not treason.  The Constitution defines treason as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.quote>

A politician seeking to change the Bill of Rights is not committing treason.  So long as he doesn't declare war against the US, or aid someone who is currently at war with the US, he's in the clear.  Failure to honor the oath to uphold the Constitution does not, and currently cannot, constitute treason.  (Not that I agree with failing to uphold the oath, but I digress).

Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, something he shares with a majority of the Supreme Court. As he has stated, our gov't cannot even fulfill the most basic of its Constitutional duties, and should not be taking on the burden of everyone's pet peeves in life. quote>

I believe in taking the Constitution to mean what the words on the page says, but here's the inherent problem with doing that with no flexibility - paper money is unconstitutional then by virtue of the fact that Congress has the power to coin money, not the power to print money.

Our most basic rights did not evaporate with the changing of the calendar. Times do change, usually to erode our freedoms bit-by-bit. This is what needs to stop, and none of the other 3 candidates will do anything but accelerate it.

The 'other 3' just want to 'tinker with the settings' of the perverse machine we have built; only RP has the guts to point out that the very existence of the machine is wrong and unConstitutional.quote>

I would like to see Ron Paul try to change the "perverse machine."  I would really like to see this in lieu of the fac