Trump's rally in Chicago stopped due to protests
Comments
-
My Trump ears can't take anymore of this.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.
Speak to the topic or take the college debate elsewhere.
0 -
Ha...that is extremely narrow! Of course the state could be "as large and intrusive as it wants" but in theory it will be closer and more responsible to the people as they will have more direct participation in local matters.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.0 -
In theory.. but then you have what is affectionately known as "The People's Republic of California", considered intrusive on financial issues. Or states like GA and TX who are notoriously intrusive on social issues. So there are states that defy have the big gov't label.BS44325 said:
Ha...that is extremely narrow! Of course the state could be "as large and intrusive as it wants" but in theory it will be closer and more responsible to the people as they will have more direct participation in local matters.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.0 -
But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.0
-
That is correct but should a person in any state reach a point of alienation he or she has the ability to vote with his or her feet and move to a state that is most suitable to his or her needs. A large federal government cannot easily be escaped by anybody.mrussel1 said:
In theory.. but then you have what is affectionately known as "The People's Republic of California", considered intrusive on financial issues. Or states like GA and TX who are notoriously intrusive on social issues. So there are states that defy have the big gov't label.BS44325 said:
Ha...that is extremely narrow! Of course the state could be "as large and intrusive as it wants" but in theory it will be closer and more responsible to the people as they will have more direct participation in local matters.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.0 -
That is true although I am not sure that was part of the original calculus.BS44325 said:
That is correct but should a person in any state reach a point of alienation he or she has the ability to vote with his or her feet and move to a state that is most suitable to his or her needs. A large federal government cannot easily be escaped by anybody.mrussel1 said:
In theory.. but then you have what is affectionately known as "The People's Republic of California", considered intrusive on financial issues. Or states like GA and TX who are notoriously intrusive on social issues. So there are states that defy have the big gov't label.BS44325 said:
Ha...that is extremely narrow! Of course the state could be "as large and intrusive as it wants" but in theory it will be closer and more responsible to the people as they will have more direct participation in local matters.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.
0 -
Fair enough...you don't like it when people get compared to Founders and I don't like it when people get compared to Hitler.mrussel1 said:But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.
0 -
Totally part of my calculus but I just didn't expect that we would get this far down the rabbit hole.mrussel1 said:
That is true although I am not sure that was part of the original calculus.BS44325 said:
That is correct but should a person in any state reach a point of alienation he or she has the ability to vote with his or her feet and move to a state that is most suitable to his or her needs. A large federal government cannot easily be escaped by anybody.mrussel1 said:
In theory.. but then you have what is affectionately known as "The People's Republic of California", considered intrusive on financial issues. Or states like GA and TX who are notoriously intrusive on social issues. So there are states that defy have the big gov't label.BS44325 said:
Ha...that is extremely narrow! Of course the state could be "as large and intrusive as it wants" but in theory it will be closer and more responsible to the people as they will have more direct participation in local matters.mrussel1 said:
Right, but the Constitution does not limit state gov't, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. It can be as large and intrusive as it wants to be. And my point was that the Founders were not classical liberals (although they had some Locke influence, obviously). I agreed that the protesters don't represent the Founding Fathers. But I'm also arguing that they were not against big gov't, only big federal gov't which is not the same. I'm saying both of you were wrong (although you, based on a much more narrow basis).BS44325 said:
Yes...the constitution limits the federal government...that is my point. For Bentleyspop to compare today's protestors to the colonial revolutionaries makes no sense. Today's protestors (other then the Tea Party) are generally for a larger more unlimited/unrestrained federal government.mrussel1 said:
You are using your political lens of today. The Constitution limits the FEDERAL government. Specifically the 10th Amendment grants all powers not specifically enumerated in the first 9 Amendments, to the states. It does not limit the states or the local governments what they can and cannot do, so long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights. That is not the same as libertarianism or even classic liberalism.BS44325 said:
The crown was big government...taxing and making laws from across the ocean. The landowners were white and wealthy but they wanted self rule all the same. It's sort of outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution if you need some source material.mrussel1 said:
No, they weren't against big government. Don't try to use today's nomenclature or talking points. Nor were they liberals in the sense that we use that term today. They were white wealthy land owners striving to become wealthier by throwing off the yoke of the crown.BS44325 said:
These protestors are not the equivalent of the colonial revolutionaries. The colonial revolutionaries were against big government...these protestors want more government.Bentleyspop said:Before this thread gets locked I thought that I would point out that today you call the protesters "liberal extremists" but 240 years ago they were called colonial revolutionaries.
Where would we be today without those colonial revolutionaries??
No splinter group today gets to claim them as their own. And they probably shouldn't want to. It's not as if they were infallible.
And thanks for the sarcastic sentence at the end.0 -
That's not me. I said Trump is not half as politically skilled as Hitler.BS44325 said:
Fair enough...you don't like it when people get compared to Founders and I don't like it when people get compared to Hitler.mrussel1 said:But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.
Adolph also served. Had a vision. Had a set of principles. Trump meets none of these. Although he probably isn't a genocidal maniac. So yeah. They aren't the same.
0 -
Not half as politically skilled?! Hitler had to use brownshirts and a reichstag fire to reach power. Trump is only using twitter!mrussel1 said:
That's not me. I said Trump is not half as politically skilled as Hitler.BS44325 said:
Fair enough...you don't like it when people get compared to Founders and I don't like it when people get compared to Hitler.mrussel1 said:But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.
Adolph also served. Had a vision. Had a set of principles. Trump meets none of these. Although he probably isn't a genocidal maniac. So yeah. They aren't the same.0 -
You americans are funny to listen to.
Hitler? Really?
Trump is not nor will he become that.
Your country brought this fiasco yourself. All your reality tv shows, etc. Turn on any channel and it is fraught with your reality.
Laughable at best.
Trump has had enough of Jersey Shore!0 -
In the Weimar Republic, the Nazis had to buy their own damn newspaper to get a message out. Twitter is way easier and reaches far more people. And watch a Hitler speech.. you can tell he has something to say up there even if you don't speak German. Trump just sort of rambles on with observations most of the time. I'm sticking with this one. Trump is definitely no Hitler on the political skill side.BS44325 said:
Not half as politically skilled?! Hitler had to use brownshirts and a reichstag fire to reach power. Trump is only using twitter!mrussel1 said:
That's not me. I said Trump is not half as politically skilled as Hitler.BS44325 said:
Fair enough...you don't like it when people get compared to Founders and I don't like it when people get compared to Hitler.mrussel1 said:But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.
Adolph also served. Had a vision. Had a set of principles. Trump meets none of these. Although he probably isn't a genocidal maniac. So yeah. They aren't the same.0 -
Yeah...I was just making a joke with the Twitter thing.mrussel1 said:
In the Weimar Republic, the Nazis had to buy their own damn newspaper to get a message out. Twitter is way easier and reaches far more people. And watch a Hitler speech.. you can tell he has something to say up there even if you don't speak German. Trump just sort of rambles on with observations most of the time. I'm sticking with this one. Trump is definitely no Hitler on the political skill side.BS44325 said:
Not half as politically skilled?! Hitler had to use brownshirts and a reichstag fire to reach power. Trump is only using twitter!mrussel1 said:
That's not me. I said Trump is not half as politically skilled as Hitler.BS44325 said:
Fair enough...you don't like it when people get compared to Founders and I don't like it when people get compared to Hitler.mrussel1 said:But what does bother me is when any small group tries to claim the Founders as their own, as the inheritors of that legacy. That starts with the Tea Party but includes every other special interest group.
Adolph also served. Had a vision. Had a set of principles. Trump meets none of these. Although he probably isn't a genocidal maniac. So yeah. They aren't the same.0 -
I love that Movie, what a concept…Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Hmmmm.
I propose we have one or two days a year when we can tell it like it is. Kind of like the movie, The Purge. It's really hard to read some comments and not just f**king obliterate the gnat that wrote them sometimes.
I'm not quite ready to give up on this forum... but I'm approaching my expiration date. I'm just not fantastic at taking the higher road.
Have a nice evening. Go Zags.
Fucking awesome Win by your Zags tonight!!! What a great team Win. They completed a 6 play parlay for a cool 750 for me tonight…Sabonis was a monster tonight0 -
Where do I sign up?Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Hmmmm.
I propose we have one or two days a year when we can tell it like it is. Kind of like the movie, The Purge. It's really hard to read some comments and not just f**king obliterate the gnat that wrote them sometimes.
I'm not quite ready to give up on this forum... but I'm approaching my expiration date. I'm just not fantastic at taking the higher road.
Have a nice evening. Go Zags.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=welqyAKtmeE 0 -
We're 2 for 2 in the good books here, Musky.muskydan said:
I love that Movie, what a concept…Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Hmmmm.
I propose we have one or two days a year when we can tell it like it is. Kind of like the movie, The Purge. It's really hard to read some comments and not just f**king obliterate the gnat that wrote them sometimes.
I'm not quite ready to give up on this forum... but I'm approaching my expiration date. I'm just not fantastic at taking the higher road.
Have a nice evening. Go Zags.
Fucking awesome Win by your Zags tonight!!! What a great team Win. They completed a 6 play parlay for a cool 750 for me tonight…Sabonis was a monster tonight
Nice win yourself!"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Just as I thought. You and Musky are in cahoots.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're 2 for 2 in the good books here, Musky.muskydan said:
I love that Movie, what a concept…Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Hmmmm.
I propose we have one or two days a year when we can tell it like it is. Kind of like the movie, The Purge. It's really hard to read some comments and not just f**king obliterate the gnat that wrote them sometimes.
I'm not quite ready to give up on this forum... but I'm approaching my expiration date. I'm just not fantastic at taking the higher road.
Have a nice evening. Go Zags.
Fucking awesome Win by your Zags tonight!!! What a great team Win. They completed a 6 play parlay for a cool 750 for me tonight…Sabonis was a monster tonight
Nice win yourself!
Like Trump says, he unifies.0 -
Your Zags are playing fantastic Ball….God I love the tournament!!! Although it does not help out with my slight gambling problem most of the time, but not tonight.. I was bummed Wichita State lost today, but Northern Iowa is still alive…I am a Missouri Valley guy. Good luck the rest of the way, I will definitely be playing the Zags as far as they go...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're 2 for 2 in the good books here, Musky.muskydan said:
I love that Movie, what a concept…Thirty Bills Unpaid said:Hmmmm.
I propose we have one or two days a year when we can tell it like it is. Kind of like the movie, The Purge. It's really hard to read some comments and not just f**king obliterate the gnat that wrote them sometimes.
I'm not quite ready to give up on this forum... but I'm approaching my expiration date. I'm just not fantastic at taking the higher road.
Have a nice evening. Go Zags.
Fucking awesome Win by your Zags tonight!!! What a great team Win. They completed a 6 play parlay for a cool 750 for me tonight…Sabonis was a monster tonight
Nice win yourself!0 -
GONZAGA!!!!
Take me piece by piece.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....0 -
Glad to see Musky is making sure everyone knows exactly what kind of guy he is, keepin' it classy with his "realism" lol
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help