Happy 69th Birthday to the man who has inspired my mentally challenged friend to name his fake football team the Chuck Norris Round House Kicks to the Face.
Smoothgoblin
offline
offline
Whoa, there's a team named Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kicks to the Face?!? That's bad ass!!
Quadri Space
offline
offline
It looks like he may be so disappointed with your loss yesterday he is thinking of moving on to bigger and better things:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103
Last edited Mar 10, 2009 20:52:26
william78
offline
offline
Im actually quite disappointed.....thats pretty treasonous - succession?
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
Quadri Space
offline
offline
Originally posted by william78
Im actually quite disappointed.....thats pretty treasonous - succession?
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
It's possible that at some point that may be the only way to "fix what's broke" --- Washington is corrupt as hell (on both sides of the isle).... Obama is trashing the 10th amendment (state's rights), destroying our economy (massive spending, raising taxes, cap-and-trade) and consolidating power to hinder free elections (Acorn, centralizing the census, no id required to vote). Producers are being forced to buy houses for deadbeats.
A dangerous situation is being created. People that believe in freedom are ultimately not going to accept economic, political and individual slavery just because Obama asks nicely.
I think what he is really saying is: Individual freedom (a.k.a capitalism) is under attack and it may take radical measures to defend against the radical marxist agenda being forced through right now. It's no different that what has happened in other countries throughout history --- Russia, Germany, China --- sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they end up dead.
Im actually quite disappointed.....thats pretty treasonous - succession?
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
It's possible that at some point that may be the only way to "fix what's broke" --- Washington is corrupt as hell (on both sides of the isle).... Obama is trashing the 10th amendment (state's rights), destroying our economy (massive spending, raising taxes, cap-and-trade) and consolidating power to hinder free elections (Acorn, centralizing the census, no id required to vote). Producers are being forced to buy houses for deadbeats.
A dangerous situation is being created. People that believe in freedom are ultimately not going to accept economic, political and individual slavery just because Obama asks nicely.
I think what he is really saying is: Individual freedom (a.k.a capitalism) is under attack and it may take radical measures to defend against the radical marxist agenda being forced through right now. It's no different that what has happened in other countries throughout history --- Russia, Germany, China --- sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they end up dead.
Last edited Mar 12, 2009 11:53:24
william78
offline
offline
Originally posted by Quadri Space
Originally posted by william78
Im actually quite disappointed.....thats pretty treasonous - succession?
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
It's possible that at some point that may be the only way to "fix what's broke" --- Washington is corrupt as hell (on both sides of the isle).... Obama is trashing the 10th amendment (state's rights), destroying our economy (massive spending, raising taxes, cap-and-trade) and consolidating power to hinder free elections (Acorn, centralizing the census, no id required to vote). Producers are being forced to buy houses for deadbeats.
A dangerous situation is being created. People that believe in freedom are ultimately not going to accept economic, political and individual slavery just because Obama asks nicely.
I think what he is really saying is: Individual freedom (a.k.a capitalism) is under attack and it may take radical measures to defend against the radical marxist agenda being forced through right now. It's no different that what has happened in other countries throughout history --- Russia, Germany, China --- sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they end up dead.
Those have nothing to do with the point I'm making but........
Individual Freedom and Capital Markets are not synonymous terms. One is an idea of personal liberty that is generally linked to freedom of choice in government. The other is an economic system.
Examples:
India has a pretty heavy capital market and is one of the worlds fastest growing economies over the past decade, but places fairly heavy restrictions on personal conduct that impair personal liberties as we would understand them.
The Dutch are very free, but their version of economy has been much closer to socialism than we are now or your fear of the current political movings will take us.
The Chinese restrict both personal property and heavily restrict individual rights, but have liberated their capital markets substantially increasing their economic power and raising annual GDP by 8% per anum over the last 15 years. Their economic liberalization has done nothing to improve their human rights record or respect for "personal liberty".
Examples of this could go on and on......but the backward looking historic view that the US was always a paradise of good government is misguided and not supported by historical evidence. Post revolution America had just as many, if not more corrupt politicians than we do today. Power corrupts. It's the nature of any form of government. Especially during the civil war politicians frequently lined their pockets as war profiteers, an act at the time that had no law against it.
However regardless of ones political view the statement and Glen Beck's retort are still treasonous in nature even if they are protected as free speech. Free Speech includes alot of things I dont find particularly admirable, a KKK rally at which no laws are broken is an example of free speech ......it's just not something I would celebrate or advocate for. Besides the best solution for bad free speech is more free speech.
It's one thing to be upset with the direction of your Country protesting that to the ends of your day is admirable.....advocating leaving it.......or claiming to be embarrassed to be an American......is just plain cowardice - no matter how fast your roundhouse kick is.
Originally posted by william78
Im actually quite disappointed.....thats pretty treasonous - succession?
Since when does Chuck Norris(the real one) that quitting and taking your ball and going home is more sensible than trying to fix what's broke. It's pretty childish not to mention rebellious.
It's possible that at some point that may be the only way to "fix what's broke" --- Washington is corrupt as hell (on both sides of the isle).... Obama is trashing the 10th amendment (state's rights), destroying our economy (massive spending, raising taxes, cap-and-trade) and consolidating power to hinder free elections (Acorn, centralizing the census, no id required to vote). Producers are being forced to buy houses for deadbeats.
A dangerous situation is being created. People that believe in freedom are ultimately not going to accept economic, political and individual slavery just because Obama asks nicely.
I think what he is really saying is: Individual freedom (a.k.a capitalism) is under attack and it may take radical measures to defend against the radical marxist agenda being forced through right now. It's no different that what has happened in other countries throughout history --- Russia, Germany, China --- sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they end up dead.
Those have nothing to do with the point I'm making but........
Individual Freedom and Capital Markets are not synonymous terms. One is an idea of personal liberty that is generally linked to freedom of choice in government. The other is an economic system.
Examples:
India has a pretty heavy capital market and is one of the worlds fastest growing economies over the past decade, but places fairly heavy restrictions on personal conduct that impair personal liberties as we would understand them.
The Dutch are very free, but their version of economy has been much closer to socialism than we are now or your fear of the current political movings will take us.
The Chinese restrict both personal property and heavily restrict individual rights, but have liberated their capital markets substantially increasing their economic power and raising annual GDP by 8% per anum over the last 15 years. Their economic liberalization has done nothing to improve their human rights record or respect for "personal liberty".
Examples of this could go on and on......but the backward looking historic view that the US was always a paradise of good government is misguided and not supported by historical evidence. Post revolution America had just as many, if not more corrupt politicians than we do today. Power corrupts. It's the nature of any form of government. Especially during the civil war politicians frequently lined their pockets as war profiteers, an act at the time that had no law against it.
However regardless of ones political view the statement and Glen Beck's retort are still treasonous in nature even if they are protected as free speech. Free Speech includes alot of things I dont find particularly admirable, a KKK rally at which no laws are broken is an example of free speech ......it's just not something I would celebrate or advocate for. Besides the best solution for bad free speech is more free speech.
It's one thing to be upset with the direction of your Country protesting that to the ends of your day is admirable.....advocating leaving it.......or claiming to be embarrassed to be an American......is just plain cowardice - no matter how fast your roundhouse kick is.
BruinsBold
offline
offline
I agree with William in that Chuck should have kept that little tidbit to himself and it does make me lose respect for both him and Glen Beck. But, the flip side is that the Liberal agenda in this country is making a push for a socialist America and are also taking liberties with our personal freedoms under the guise of tolerance. I fear for our nation, until we get a politician who is willing to subvert his own ego and the ego of his party to the good of the country we may be in for a long haul. I did not vote for Obama, because I am a conservative and he is a liberal, but he is now my president and I pray for him daily that his decisions will be wise and just.
Quadri Space
offline
offline
I love the tone of this conversation, and I enjoy talking about politics at this level.
Overall, I think that this frustration comes because this administration is forcing us down a road that results in loss of freedom that will be very hard to reverse.
Since socialists control the white house, congress and the senate, the entire federal government; people are now looking to the state's to stand up for individual freedom. There are checks and balances in the constitution that are being ignored and that's just plain dangerous to maintaining a stable society.
The stimulus is nothing more than a power grab that is attempting to enslave the state governments to long-term federal funding. It's also intended to replace private industry jobs with silly government jobs (not a good thing).
The federal government will eventually have to back off or they will force states and individuals into a corner.
Overall, I think that this frustration comes because this administration is forcing us down a road that results in loss of freedom that will be very hard to reverse.
Since socialists control the white house, congress and the senate, the entire federal government; people are now looking to the state's to stand up for individual freedom. There are checks and balances in the constitution that are being ignored and that's just plain dangerous to maintaining a stable society.
The stimulus is nothing more than a power grab that is attempting to enslave the state governments to long-term federal funding. It's also intended to replace private industry jobs with silly government jobs (not a good thing).
The federal government will eventually have to back off or they will force states and individuals into a corner.
Last edited Mar 13, 2009 09:11:38
Quadri Space
offline
offline
There is nothing treasonous about considering secession. It is an extreme measure and a direction nobody wants to go, but it is part of the system. States have rights as do individuals, and if the federal government ignores the boundaries set forth in the constitution then states can and should consider defending these rights.
fnordish
offline
offline
First off, really in a fake football game forum we need to talk about this? I knew you guys were finding the forums a bit dull this year, but holy cow.
Second, perhaps you are aware of my favorite definition of insanity, Doing the same thing, and expect a different outcome. Secession has already been tried. That failed attempt at secession was the single biggest blow to states rights, and has waterfalled it's way down to today.
Second, perhaps you are aware of my favorite definition of insanity, Doing the same thing, and expect a different outcome. Secession has already been tried. That failed attempt at secession was the single biggest blow to states rights, and has waterfalled it's way down to today.
william78
offline
offline
Quadri-
Your view that capitalism = freedom or that capitalism was in some part what the founding fathers fought a revolution for, is incorrect and does not reflect an actual view of what the revolution was about.
The call of "socalism" aside (I quote it because it has so many definition other than the original one), History does not support your contention that America fought a revolution in part or in whole on the underpinnings of capitalism. Nor was capitalism even the decided upon economic model at the time of the revolution.
In actuality there was serious debate long after the revolution was fought and the Constitution signed. Not until about 40 years later was capitalism generally recognized as the best economic model to use.
Historically
Othrthodox Calvanists, Quakers, and Puritans(the guys who first founded the country) demonstrably opposed capitalism as a wicked evil since it promoted greed. The later settlers who came from England typically where the ones who were proponents of capitalism.
For a good historical look you can read some of the famous debates between Roger Sherman and Rev. Johnathon Edwards Jr. that took place in the late 1790's.
Capitalism did not "catch on" in full swing until about 1830 with the early industrialization of factories. Prior to that many counties and states maintained strict price controls on various goods, particularly Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Virginia. As a matter of fact these price controls were one of the key reasons for the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution which required states to recognize the laws of other states. Prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation some states would require their citizens to enforce the "price controls" even when moving across state lines. It's also the reason the federal government was granted sole power to regulate inter-state commerce.
Price Controls, Quota's, import tariffs(from state to state or county to county), fixed bids, government mandated jobs - were all fixtures of early post-revolution America and very very un-free market.
Read: Calvanism, Capitalism, and Public Policy in post Revolutionary New England if your very much interested in the subject.
The idea of the founding fathers and revolution boils down to some essential points
1. Self determination - On taxes or anything else the colonists had no say in England , no elected representative, no way to seek a peaceful re-dress of grievances
2. Freedom of Choice - The colonies were founded on religious freedom which was slowly being denied by the crown.
3. An idea of personal liberty , to freely assemble with others to express ideas and thoughts
4. A rejection of hereditary rule as a form of government , best argued by Patrick Henry.
Capitalism was not even on the menu for them, I love the free market , but to argue that America was founded on capitalism and that capitalism equals freedom simply is not correct.
Your view that capitalism = freedom or that capitalism was in some part what the founding fathers fought a revolution for, is incorrect and does not reflect an actual view of what the revolution was about.
The call of "socalism" aside (I quote it because it has so many definition other than the original one), History does not support your contention that America fought a revolution in part or in whole on the underpinnings of capitalism. Nor was capitalism even the decided upon economic model at the time of the revolution.
In actuality there was serious debate long after the revolution was fought and the Constitution signed. Not until about 40 years later was capitalism generally recognized as the best economic model to use.
Historically
Othrthodox Calvanists, Quakers, and Puritans(the guys who first founded the country) demonstrably opposed capitalism as a wicked evil since it promoted greed. The later settlers who came from England typically where the ones who were proponents of capitalism.
For a good historical look you can read some of the famous debates between Roger Sherman and Rev. Johnathon Edwards Jr. that took place in the late 1790's.
Capitalism did not "catch on" in full swing until about 1830 with the early industrialization of factories. Prior to that many counties and states maintained strict price controls on various goods, particularly Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Virginia. As a matter of fact these price controls were one of the key reasons for the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution which required states to recognize the laws of other states. Prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation some states would require their citizens to enforce the "price controls" even when moving across state lines. It's also the reason the federal government was granted sole power to regulate inter-state commerce.
Price Controls, Quota's, import tariffs(from state to state or county to county), fixed bids, government mandated jobs - were all fixtures of early post-revolution America and very very un-free market.
Read: Calvanism, Capitalism, and Public Policy in post Revolutionary New England if your very much interested in the subject.
The idea of the founding fathers and revolution boils down to some essential points
1. Self determination - On taxes or anything else the colonists had no say in England , no elected representative, no way to seek a peaceful re-dress of grievances
2. Freedom of Choice - The colonies were founded on religious freedom which was slowly being denied by the crown.
3. An idea of personal liberty , to freely assemble with others to express ideas and thoughts
4. A rejection of hereditary rule as a form of government , best argued by Patrick Henry.
Capitalism was not even on the menu for them, I love the free market , but to argue that America was founded on capitalism and that capitalism equals freedom simply is not correct.
Quadri Space
offline
offline
First, capitalism is the only economic system that honors individual rights such as private property and resources. Socialism/communism seeks to elimate private ownership and redistribute wealth; fascism seeks to control the use of it.
Second, since 1776, America has had a foundation based an individual’s right to own property, manage such property and keep any wealth that is earned. Call it what you want, but it sounds a lot like capitalism.
This entire foundation is under attack.
Second, since 1776, America has had a foundation based an individual’s right to own property, manage such property and keep any wealth that is earned. Call it what you want, but it sounds a lot like capitalism.
This entire foundation is under attack.
william78
offline
offline
Originally posted by Quadri Space
First, capitalism is the only economic system that honors individual rights such as private property and resources. Socialism/communism seeks to elimate private ownership and redistribute wealth; fascism seeks to control the use of it.
Second, since 1776, America has had a foundation based an individual’s right to own property, manage such property and keep any wealth that is earned. Call it what you want, but it sounds a lot like capitalism.
This entire foundation is under attack.
Your comments about a foundation of individual property rights being around since 1776 are still not historically accurate and more of a popular myth, I've provided plenty of references for you to use as above and all can be easily researched.
While I agree that free market / capitalism approach is the best way to claim it's the historical basis of our country since the revolution (which pre-dates the Constitution) is not correct.
A good many people felt that way, but also as many felt differently. Thus the changing of the original wording of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" several members preferred life, liberty, and property, but this resulted in an untenable debate with the Calvanists/Puritan alliance who would not consent and continued to run the states and various counties in the same way.
My suggestion is that your view of freedom is entirely narrow and is the result of and I hope you forgive the comment an overly privileged view of the world. If you think the single greatest invention of the shot heard round the world is capitalism your sorely mistaken.
The rejection of tyranny was IMO the greatest freedom proposed, and while states rights are the 10th amendment in the bill of rights, major individual liberties go into the first nine that all deal with various oppressions of the English crown on it's subjects.
I say it's an overly privileged view because having traveled to parts of the world where those freedoms are not supported gives me a full perspective of just how valuable those freedoms are. At the heart of those freedoms is that we in the US have experienced 45 successful peaceful transfers of authority, that you don't find everywhere.
Having served time in the Middle East I would suggest you ask the Sunni and Shia and Iraq their view of transfer of authority, or what it's like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia, a reformer in Kuwait, then you may have some idea of what freedom is really all about.
I'm happy to defend Capitalism anytime, but your statement actually offends me for the same reason Chuck Norris's did - One thing about America we may have problems and we may have issues, we may have intense debates among another on how to proceed but at the end of the day, as long as we have stuck together what we have accomplished has far exceeded the times we failed. Where tyranny and oppression have been stood up to by the sons of settlers, immigrants and slaves alike.
If you think what Obama proposes is tyranny or oppression , I suggest you tour the world and find out what tyranny really is, then maybe you'll have a better appreciation of freedom.
First, capitalism is the only economic system that honors individual rights such as private property and resources. Socialism/communism seeks to elimate private ownership and redistribute wealth; fascism seeks to control the use of it.
Second, since 1776, America has had a foundation based an individual’s right to own property, manage such property and keep any wealth that is earned. Call it what you want, but it sounds a lot like capitalism.
This entire foundation is under attack.
Your comments about a foundation of individual property rights being around since 1776 are still not historically accurate and more of a popular myth, I've provided plenty of references for you to use as above and all can be easily researched.
While I agree that free market / capitalism approach is the best way to claim it's the historical basis of our country since the revolution (which pre-dates the Constitution) is not correct.
A good many people felt that way, but also as many felt differently. Thus the changing of the original wording of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" several members preferred life, liberty, and property, but this resulted in an untenable debate with the Calvanists/Puritan alliance who would not consent and continued to run the states and various counties in the same way.
My suggestion is that your view of freedom is entirely narrow and is the result of and I hope you forgive the comment an overly privileged view of the world. If you think the single greatest invention of the shot heard round the world is capitalism your sorely mistaken.
The rejection of tyranny was IMO the greatest freedom proposed, and while states rights are the 10th amendment in the bill of rights, major individual liberties go into the first nine that all deal with various oppressions of the English crown on it's subjects.
I say it's an overly privileged view because having traveled to parts of the world where those freedoms are not supported gives me a full perspective of just how valuable those freedoms are. At the heart of those freedoms is that we in the US have experienced 45 successful peaceful transfers of authority, that you don't find everywhere.
Having served time in the Middle East I would suggest you ask the Sunni and Shia and Iraq their view of transfer of authority, or what it's like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia, a reformer in Kuwait, then you may have some idea of what freedom is really all about.
I'm happy to defend Capitalism anytime, but your statement actually offends me for the same reason Chuck Norris's did - One thing about America we may have problems and we may have issues, we may have intense debates among another on how to proceed but at the end of the day, as long as we have stuck together what we have accomplished has far exceeded the times we failed. Where tyranny and oppression have been stood up to by the sons of settlers, immigrants and slaves alike.
If you think what Obama proposes is tyranny or oppression , I suggest you tour the world and find out what tyranny really is, then maybe you'll have a better appreciation of freedom.
Quadri Space
offline
offline
William78 --- your words are eloquent but much of your history is revisionist. Private property rights were, in fact, a foundation of our country.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management]."---Thomas Jefferson
I believe it is much better to have a tight definition of individual freedom because many politicians are intent on destroying it. I would suggest that you are too lax in your acceptance of your gradual loss of freedom. I never mentioned the word tyranny, and I do not suggest that we are living under tyranny. However, tyranny can come fast even in free countries, just ask the people of 1918 Russia, 1938 Germany, 1950 China or 2006 Venezuala. (My dates are likely a little off)
Do you suggest that we do nothing as we watch a foundation being built that is not based on capitalism? Do you claim that free people relinquish freedom after freedom because the majority requests it (there are still unalienable rights)? Do you suggest that we allow our free elections to become compromised? Do you suggest that we allow the federal government to enslave states with welfare money via the stimulus? Do you claim that the federal government is not bound by the restraints of the constitution?
Many of the actions coming rapidly from the Obama administration and gleefully accepted by our socialist congress and senate promote a potentially irreversible trend. Without federal representation, states represent a legal line of defense as outlined in the constitution. There is nothing wrong with exploring options to legally counter a power mad federal government. In fact, the founding fathers found a power mad federal government to be a very real concern.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you suggest the there is ** never ** a time for a state to dissolve itself from our union?
I for one believe that we should do everything possible to stop the centralization of power ** before ** it becomes oppressive or tyrannical. For then it is too late to resolve without bloodshed. At that point individual freedom is lost and forgotten. I think that we should stand strong anytime freedoms are threatened and be willing to identify and reject the slippery slope of tyranny. Then and only then maybe we have a chance to avoid it, or at least delay it. If we take an attitude of apathy or ignorance, as you propose, then we are bound to repeat history; the kind that kills innocent people and empowers evil politicians.
I don’t believe that seccession is necessary if the 10th amendment is honored. If the 10th amendment and separation of power between federal and state government is ignored, how can you in good conscience believe that the problem lies with people working within the system instead of a federal government working despite the system?
We are living in a system that is outside the intention of our founding fathers. The federal government has **way** too much power and this needs to be trimmed back significantly, and soon.
"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones." --Thomas Jefferson
"The several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but... by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,-- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government." --Thomas Jefferson
I do not believe that Chuck is actually proposing secession; the statement was made in jest. However, I do believe and support the fact that he is trying to increase awareness that the states do have rights and there are real consequences if a federal government reaches too far.
I find it amazing that people are not more appreciative of our 200+ year history of success based on a system set up by Thomas Jefferson and others. This system has resulted in individual freedom and wealth beyond anything in previous history. It is not enough to just vote, the constitution must be followed by those voted into office, and the people and states have the right to enforce this.
Instead, as a country we seem intent on replacing our capitalist foundation with a marxist one that embraces redistribution and punishes production. The track record of these systems is terrible and horrific. Literally hundred of thousands of dead innocent people, human rights violations and zero individual freedom. Anyone that supports this trend is truly evil or ignorant.
I guess there is hope for the Marxists, Karl Marx was pretty cocky:
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."
Karl Marx, 1867
Maybe he was a prophet…
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management]."---Thomas Jefferson
I believe it is much better to have a tight definition of individual freedom because many politicians are intent on destroying it. I would suggest that you are too lax in your acceptance of your gradual loss of freedom. I never mentioned the word tyranny, and I do not suggest that we are living under tyranny. However, tyranny can come fast even in free countries, just ask the people of 1918 Russia, 1938 Germany, 1950 China or 2006 Venezuala. (My dates are likely a little off)
Do you suggest that we do nothing as we watch a foundation being built that is not based on capitalism? Do you claim that free people relinquish freedom after freedom because the majority requests it (there are still unalienable rights)? Do you suggest that we allow our free elections to become compromised? Do you suggest that we allow the federal government to enslave states with welfare money via the stimulus? Do you claim that the federal government is not bound by the restraints of the constitution?
Many of the actions coming rapidly from the Obama administration and gleefully accepted by our socialist congress and senate promote a potentially irreversible trend. Without federal representation, states represent a legal line of defense as outlined in the constitution. There is nothing wrong with exploring options to legally counter a power mad federal government. In fact, the founding fathers found a power mad federal government to be a very real concern.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Do you suggest the there is ** never ** a time for a state to dissolve itself from our union?
I for one believe that we should do everything possible to stop the centralization of power ** before ** it becomes oppressive or tyrannical. For then it is too late to resolve without bloodshed. At that point individual freedom is lost and forgotten. I think that we should stand strong anytime freedoms are threatened and be willing to identify and reject the slippery slope of tyranny. Then and only then maybe we have a chance to avoid it, or at least delay it. If we take an attitude of apathy or ignorance, as you propose, then we are bound to repeat history; the kind that kills innocent people and empowers evil politicians.
I don’t believe that seccession is necessary if the 10th amendment is honored. If the 10th amendment and separation of power between federal and state government is ignored, how can you in good conscience believe that the problem lies with people working within the system instead of a federal government working despite the system?
We are living in a system that is outside the intention of our founding fathers. The federal government has **way** too much power and this needs to be trimmed back significantly, and soon.
"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones." --Thomas Jefferson
"The several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but... by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,-- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government." --Thomas Jefferson
I do not believe that Chuck is actually proposing secession; the statement was made in jest. However, I do believe and support the fact that he is trying to increase awareness that the states do have rights and there are real consequences if a federal government reaches too far.
I find it amazing that people are not more appreciative of our 200+ year history of success based on a system set up by Thomas Jefferson and others. This system has resulted in individual freedom and wealth beyond anything in previous history. It is not enough to just vote, the constitution must be followed by those voted into office, and the people and states have the right to enforce this.
Instead, as a country we seem intent on replacing our capitalist foundation with a marxist one that embraces redistribution and punishes production. The track record of these systems is terrible and horrific. Literally hundred of thousands of dead innocent people, human rights violations and zero individual freedom. Anyone that supports this trend is truly evil or ignorant.
I guess there is hope for the Marxists, Karl Marx was pretty cocky:
"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."
Karl Marx, 1867
Maybe he was a prophet…
Last edited Mar 14, 2009 19:39:59
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
