As much as I despise the liberal agenda...
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
...NOTHING irritates me more than neo-cons. I should rather say the people that hijacked the TEA Party, these TEA O'Cons. Rick fucking Perry? Sarah fucking Palin? Michelle fucking Bachmann?
Makes me sick.
RON PAUL 2012!
LIBERTY FIRST!
Makes me sick.
RON PAUL 2012!
LIBERTY FIRST!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Ron Paul really is only one guy radically different than everyone else out there, including the president, and Dr. Paul IS growing more electable by the day-- the cold shoulder treatment by the media really backfired on them, and I think he is really only starting to benefit from it. Sadly, as the economy worsens, more people are going to want to listen to him-- and he'll be the first person to wish he was 100% wrong-- but on matters of the economy, he's dead on. Everything that is happening currently was predicted by him years ago, and I feel that he has the best approach for getting things straightened out, and fuck, the guy even talks about wanting PEACE, and actually promoting a policy of LESS VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE IT. How about instead of trying to achieve PEACE through more fighting and violence, we take a more direct approach? How can anyone see an issue with that? How can't that issue trump every other one automatically-- especially for principled liberals? The United States has not been at war for a mere 10 years as so many people wrongfully and forgetfully believe... It's been at war steadily in foreign countries since World War II, and has actually been internally at war for almost nearly as long-- and he wants to end it ALL. Whether he will be a success at it or not remains to be seen-- we just need to make steps in the right direction first and declare that there is a need to ending painful, wasteful, and expensive-in-every-way-imaginable war. Personally, I think he's got great pull in achieving this since as Commander in Chief he could order troops home from everywhere. He can also veto war-related spending bills as well as veto resolutions promoting any kind of foreign entanglement. As far as ending the "war on drugs" and any other war against the American people, his attorney general could back way off, unlike Holder or anyone else in this position, and let the states do their thing. These are very workable solutions to very HUGE problems, all of which are executive powers that are simply never exercised because we have yet to have a president that actually works for the people. I also think a Ron Paul presidencey would promote a watchful eye on the Fed, the backroom dealing and secret bailouts would have to suffer a tremendous blow.
It really is time for people to stop doubting, and start doing. The guy is electable if we want him to be... I've been on the bandwagon since late 07, and I can't tell you how much the movement behind this guy has grown... If the past X number of presidents have only been marginally different, with their overall philosophies failing us, then why not just get behind the honest guy with some interesting and different ideas?
As I see things, congress fiddles while America burns. Of course, this opinion is coming from a Canadian so it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Ron Paul would support Bachmann, Perry, or Romney (should they win the nomination).... against Obama.
There's a reason for that. He's a Republican. I like what Ron Paul stands for, but (like Ron Paul) I'm not clueless enough to think voting for the opposing party is going to help his cause.
At this point, I'd prefer any Republican candidate to Obama.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
As I mentioned above, I believe tremendous strides can be made with regards to foreign policy with just the actions or non-actions of the president. Could the Commander in Chief not order the troops home as he sees fit? He IS the Commander-- Congress holds the purse, and can declare war-- but when was the last time that was done? Simply put, no president cares enough to the bring troops home, and this is why it is never done. But the president can order troops home while Congress pulls its normal bullshit-- it's just that few of them rarely do it. Paul has made the bold claim that he would do it-- so even if he were a total liar, we've got a few hundred soundbytes as well as printed articles by this guy claiming he would do this if elected president.
Also, seeing as how regulations are written everyday by various government agencies whose heads are appointed by the president, the executive branch has some power to do as it needs without Congress (although I take some issue with the agencies, and I think that Congress SHOULD be writing the laws, but they should be more discretionary in doing so). Actually having Congress doing absolutely nothing might even be welcome for a change since almost every law they pass only makes our situation worse anyway.
In the election coverage I've seen, Sarah Palin gets more media attention than Ron Paul, and she's not even in the fucking race. She could get on Twitter and talk about her weekend and the news is all over it, meanwhile I have very little idea of who or what Ron Paul is, other than that he's a Congressman from Texas. Even the local news here in Texas barely talks about him, they're more concerned with Perry.
I guess I'll have to do my own research (probably better that way anyhow) because unless he starts ranting and raving the news isn't interested in talking about him.
He did NOT support McCain in 2008. He supported Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. That's right. Wha?? Chuck WHO?
I could see him potentially supporting one of them if they talk like him to get elected... maybe. At which point, on some small level he has won-- when the establishment is talking about the Fed or the need for less war, it is a victory in the intellectual battle-- even if they are bullshitting. For him, foreign policy is the biggest thing-- so even if someone was REALLY rallying against The Fed, and seemed very serious, he wouldn't give anyone his endorsement if they didn't at least promise to re-think our foreign policy. The two go very hand-in-hand in my opinion. He actually often praises W.'s foregin policy platform from 2000-- which was non-interventionist, no nation building, and even pointed Clinton out as hawkish and interventionist. Well, we all know how different W. turned out to be.
no, he would not.
Agreed, not a chance.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Agreed again. He wouldn't even support McCain in '08. He supported Chuck Baldwin. Ron Paul has something a lot of politicians do not, principles. And he stands by them.
Hail, Hail!!!
I can picture Bachmann wanting to nuke The City by the Bay. Only problem is all of our liberal radiation fallout would eventually drift over Stillwater!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What is the 'Liberal Agenda'... I must've missed that memo.
Hail, Hail!!!
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I suppose it could be considered the belief that the federal government not only can but that they should solve societal issues like poverty, healthcare costs, etc...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
nah... like most politicians she is all talk to get votes... Her and Rick Perry talk the tea party talk about gov't spending, but have their hand out for federal money every chance they get.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This is true, they don't have a plan, that much is clear.
Just asking... but, does that fall under the 'Promote the General Welfare' clause? Without the term 'Welfare' used to describe the general use of the term in today's environment. More like, looking over the greater good of ALL American citizens. Because, for example, the increasing costs of Health Care is affecting ALL of us... not just the ones without insurance.
...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Hail, Hail!!!
if those things were to be covered by the general welfare statement, they could have just stopped there and not needed any other parts of the constitution. That isn't necessarily a clause as it is a general statement of purpose of the government. if it was meant that the government could ever increase the size of itself in the name of the "general welfare of the people", the enumerated and implied powers of the constitution would not have been necessary. You wouldn't need anything else. You wouldn't need any limits on the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the judicial branch.
Because the power the government has to "promote the general welfare" of the people is spelled out inside the constitution. and anything that exceeds those enumerated powers is and should be declared unconstitutional.
For anyone interested, a pretty good book about the importance of the division of government and states' rights should look into the book "Power Divided is Power Checked" by Jason Lewis. Pretty good read about the constitution and the federal limits that are supposed to exist. Good read, especially for people who don't have a great grasp of the constitution and the powers it grants our government.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Question: Are those things covered in the general statement of purpose of the government?
Regarding the Preamble, it is an opening statement on what government should do as defined in the following Constitution. The government is going to:
Establish Justice, (by establishing a law making, law enforement and courts system)
Insure domestic Tranquility, (by granting Liberties and placing restrictions on government)
Provide for the common defence, (by creating and upkeeping a Natioanl Military Force)
Promote the general Welfare, (by ensuring that all Americans are provided access to these Liberties)
Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
So... the answer is No, you can't just stop at the Preamble without clarifying the methods and procedures to establish a government.
Hail, Hail!!!
I am referring more to the general welfare clause in article 1 section 8, not necessarily stopping at the preamble. Congress would need no other rules if general welfare meant the peoeples day to day lives. The whole document could have said, "Congress can tax you, and through that tax pay the nations debts and provide all basic needs of the people." if you interpret general welfare to mean take care of citizens day to day lives, then You are free to interpret it that way. I don't.
Again it is a general statement of purpose inside of a taxation article talking about what the money shall be spent on. The term welfare takes on a different connotation now because of the government programs under the same name. The interpretation of this clause and that wording is not uniform. Which is why government programs are said to be unconstitutional by some, and not others. But ultimately the federal government needed no other power than to say "we can tax the states and people at large to be spent on the general welfare of the people of the united states." That clause could be used to justify everything up to and including full wealth seizure. It didn't say that, it said of the United States...which to me means that the government has the power to tax to pay the debts and protect the United States government from creditors both foreign and domestic, as well as to promote and regulate American commerce. Does that interpretation make sense? If they had meant for article I section 8 to be applied to the people of the united states individually I believe they would have said so considering how meticulously they designed it. But that has been under debate for as long as the document has been ratified and probably before. Hamilton's and Madison's interpretations are the foundation of the argument.
I don't think you or I will be the ones to solve it
hopefully that makes sense. Having to write it between job duties. Proofread the best I could!
oh and to answer your question, I would say no.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't think there was any negative connotation with what I said. I think that is a pretty realistic viewpoint of liberal America's "agenda", for better or for worse.
You don't think that I could find any liberal who believes that things like healthcare can and should be provided? really? just because it is a generalization doesn't make it not true.
I don't think that this generalization is off base at all, nor do I think it is necessarily negative or used to discredit anyone. Would every single person interviewed give that definition of the platform, probably not exactly but can you not believe that one could extrapolate it responses?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Yep. It's that "we're against government spending except when we're not" thing. :crazy:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So myopinion about what those words mean is so far off base that I am literally incorrect. It isn't based solely on current events. It is rich with history...the great society, the new deal...these are all solutions to problems of their era...these solutions are based in the idea that the government should do more to solve societal problems. They are all liberal (left of center) in nature. Liberal isn't a dirty word, and my description is not meant as a knock on them...It is a fundamental difference between people who align on the right and people who align on the left. either you believe the government should be the first actor in a problem, or an actor of last resort... Now that may not hold true for every situation for every liberal, but I think it is a constant that cannot be ignored...nor should it be.
You may look at those words as slander, I don't. I look at them as a way to understand the motivations of someones ideas...actually makes it easier to understand them and their ideas, and it usually brings me closer to an idea of compromise.
I think you may want to check the arrogance at the door, I understand what you are trying to say, but that doesn't mean that everyone looks at those labels the same way as you do. In today's politics, if you are left of center you are more "liberal"...if you are right of center you are more conservative in nature. Now you can be on that spectrum in social issues, or economic issues, it doesn't have to be both and you can have conservative leanings and liberal ideas...I don't look at them as slander or a knock, rather than to better understand the motivations of the person I am talking to...but since the way I interpret those labels is incorrect, I guess I am just stupid and allow THEY to tell me how to think and feel.
grouping people by generalization isn't all negative.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis