US politics circa 2011

+1
. . . even if only marginally. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Palin is marginally more sane than who?

Palin is marginally more sane than who? Originally Posted by WTF

Rasputin. But no one ever gave Rasputin a gun.

Palin is marginally more sane than who? Originally Posted by WTF

Pelosi

The problem with Palin may be that she is very sane ... or at least sane in the sense of winning an election

Palin is having the last laugh...at the bank.

Palin is marginally more sane than who? Originally Posted by WTF

Barbara Boxer comes to mind - unfortunately.

Palin is marginally more sane than who? Originally Posted by WTF

This from a man who claims he would "hit it" when discussing Pelosi! A few more recommendations like this and I may just have to vote for her! ;-)

[Back comes Michael Irvin]

Come on, man!!! That is a role/goal of ANY government...ours or anyone else's. The ONLY thing that distinguishes OUR government from others is the when, the how, & the how much....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defen[s]e, 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."

The Keebler elves don't do/pay for all that. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Re-read it. It doesn't say , "steal from those who make or have money to pay for free stuff for everyone who votes for us."

Armed robbery or "income rediststribution" as the statists like to call it hardly falls under the heading of justice either then, or now, resist it and see how long you have "liberty" as well. And those who think the two words "general Welfare" gives the over reaching government the right to run rough shod over the rest of the document in order to salve their collective class guilt. . . well, let's just say it doesn't lead to my domestic tranquility.

This from a man who claims he would "hit it" when discussing Pelosi! A few more recommendations like this and I may just have to vote for her! ;-) Originally Posted by Iaintliein

She won't be running....

...but if it makes you feel any better, I'd fuc Palin too.

Barbara Boxer comes to mind - unfortunately. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'd tap Boxer also.

I'd tap Boxer also. Originally Posted by WTF

Take her! Take Barney Frank too! Take ‘em all! Maybe then, they’ll quit screwing the rest of us.

Take her! Take Barney Frank too! Take ‘em all! Maybe then, they’ll quit screwing the rest of us. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I got my on Frank, I don't need Barney's

I still don't see "redistribute wealth" in that list. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Then lean in a little closer....could be you're just not paying attention...could be you're willfully refusing to see...

ANY method of funding a government is, by definition, a redistribution of wealth amongst the citizens subject to that government. Somebody is going to feel put upon. Somebody is going to think/feel/believe that they are not getting back their $1 worth of benefits & services for every $1 of funding they have to pony up. That's life.

MORE perfect UNION
INSURE domestic TRANQUILITY
provide for the COMMON defense
promote the GENERAL welfare

...all phrases to emphasize that the Articles of Confederation government that the Constitution was replacing lacked sufficient authority to accomplish those goals. That's the case irrespective of however many missives Ayn Rand writes to the contrary...

Call it "redistribution of wealth"...call it "sufficient funding authority within the framework of powers - explicit AND implied - that followed in furtherance of these goals". Call it what you will...the fact remains that authorizing a government...ANY government to do these things empowers that government to fund them.

Re-read it. It doesn't say , "steal from those who make or have money to pay for free stuff for everyone who votes for us."

Armed robbery or "income rediststribution" as the statists like to call it hardly falls under the heading of justice either then, or now, resist it and see how long you have "liberty" as well. And those who think the two words "general Welfare" gives the over reaching government the right to run rough shod over the rest of the document in order to salve their collective class guilt. . . well, let's just say it doesn't lead to my domestic tranquility. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Armed robbery??....Seriously???? The Davidian compound is --------> that way...

I'm not a statist...far from it. But a government empowered to act towards an end is a government empowered to fund the means to accomplish it. That was the whole problem with the Articles of Confederation in the first place. Come to the think of it...also the problem with the Confederacy about fourscore years later.

About as simple as it gets... Anyone else who feels SO ripped off...SO put upon by your government....has the ultimate power to vote with one's feet! If you can get a better PERSONAL deal elsewhere...take it!

Then lean in a little closer....could be you're just not paying attention...could be you're willfully refusing to see...

ANY method of funding a government is, by definition, a redistribution of wealth amongst the citizens subject to that government. Somebody is going to feel put upon. Somebody is going to think/feel/believe that they are not getting back their $1 worth of benefits & services for every $1 of funding they have to pony up. That's life.

MORE perfect UNION
INSURE domestic TRANQUILITY
provide for the COMMON defense
promote the GENERAL welfare

...all phrases to emphasize that the Articles of Confederation government that the Constitution was replacing lacked sufficient authority to accomplish those goals. That's the case irrespective of however many missives Ayn Rand writes to the contrary...

Call it "redistribution of wealth"...call it "sufficient funding authority within the framework of powers - explicit AND implied - that followed in furtherance of these goals". Call it what you will...the fact remains that authorizing a government...ANY government to do these things empowers that government to fund them.



Armed robbery??....Seriously???? The Davidian compound is --------> that way...

I'm not a statist...far from it. But a government empowered to act towards an end is a government empowered to fund the means to accomplish it. That was the whole problem with the Articles of Confederation in the first place. Come to the think of it...also the problem with the Confederacy about fourscore years later.

About as simple as it gets... Anyone else who feels SO ripped off...SO put upon by your government....has the ultimate power to vote with one's feet! If you can get a better PERSONAL deal elsewhere...take it! Originally Posted by Sisyphus

The purpose of government according to men the Founding Fathers read and chose to emulate.

The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“The central concept in Rousseau's thought is "liberty," and most of his works deal with the mechanisms through which humans are forced to give up their liberty. At the foundation of his thought on government and authority is the idea of the "social contract," in which government and authority are a mutual contract between the authorities and the governed; this contract implies that the governed agree to be ruled only so that their rights, property and happiness be protected by their rulers. Once rulers cease to protect the ruled, the social contract is broken and the governed are free to choose another set of governors or magistrates. This idea would become the primary animating force in the Declaration of Independence, which is more or less a legal document outlining a breach of contract suit. In fact, all modern liberation discourse at some level or another owes its origin to The Social Contract and Rousseau's earlier treatise, The Discourse on Inequality.”


Second Treatise by John Locke

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)


Adam Smith Wealth of Nations

...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense...They are themselves always, and without exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.

Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. - - - The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government.

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

The raising of the denomination of the coin [inflation]has been the most usual expedient by which a real public bankruptcy has been disguised under the appearance of a pretended payment.

Nevertheless, Smith was opposed to business people joining together to stifle competition and maintain higher prices. He favored government intervention to prevent this, to prevent various dishonest practices and to promote matters that benefited society. Smith believed the government should ensure competition in the market place. He saw competition as the surest way to create incentives for efficiency.”

Beautiful words I B but I don't see any of those philosophical words in the Constitution. What is your point?

Beautiful words I B but I don't see any of those philosophical words in the Constitution. What is your point? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Context! Remember, when the Constitution was written, only men with property could vote or hold office. They had no idea suffrage rights would be extended to those who owned no property - those who do not have a vested interest in preserving wealth. The Founding Fathers extrapolated and plagiarized ideas from Locke, Rousseau, Smith, et al, and created both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those ideas, some of which I listed above, state very clearly that the purpose of government is to preserve property rights and not to redistribute wealth.