It's already past time to panic

[fossten]

You can play the numbers game - but I really do like Truman's adage - the buck stops here - If you go down that road with your reasoning complete lt - you really do have to look at Foss's statement regarding the ending of the cold war - then it really wasn't Reagan at all - but it was Tipp's congress that created the scenario that brought down the wall. They approved the defense spending - they held the purse strings...

Um...You really are a piece of work, trying to literally flip the argument around on Cal. The problem is, you already staked out a position on this issue by saying this:

Yep - I credit Reagan for spending us almost into oblivion to bring down the Soviet Union which couldn't keep up with us. Probably a whole 4 or 5 years before the Soviet Union would have collapsed because it was on the way to capitalism anyway.

Never mind the obvious and laughable non sequitur - you simply CANNOT have it both ways, fox. TSK. TSK.

 

[foxpaws]

Um...You really are a piece of work, trying to literally flip the argument around on Cal. The problem is, you already staked out a position on this issue by saying this:
Never mind the obvious and laughable non sequitur - you simply CANNOT have it both ways, fox. TSK. TSK.

type slow? or brain just slow... your post #22 changed dramatically from when I answered it... maybe you can put together a little synopsis of all the points you changed... you seem to change a lot Foss - can't make up your mind, still working out those conspiracy theories?

 

[fossten]

Foss - is this a civics test -
Constitution became law, March, 1989. It was ratified by the needed 9 states in June 1988 when New Hampshire ratified it. Virginia, New York, No. Carolina, and Rhode Island had yet to ratify it, but all did. The founding fathers could enact it into law after 9 states - so they did. The remaining states could have not ratified it as well - but they didn't, it was a unanimous ratification.

And your point....????

I made my point. Not going to repeat myself.

I don't think they have much power today - they have rolled over and played dead many, many times - you lay that at the states' door, not the Constitution Foss... because you give up your rights willingly, doesn't mean you can blame someone else or something else for your actions. The constitution isn't to blame - the blame lies at the states who started to clamor for federal money... they willing gave up their rights one by one...

No, you already credited Lincoln with this. The States tried to exert their rights in the 1860s, remember? Or did you skip American History class? Was the Civil War a 'willing' relinquishment of rights? Really, fox. You can do better than this.

You bemoaned the fact that it is almost impossible to move an amendment through in the modern age in the past Foss - now you think it would be even better to make it more difficult - when did that change? When we have been talking about fetus' rights, and the fact that to truly protect them there would need to be a constitutional amendment, you were all over that (negatively) because the amendment process was so long and involved. Have you changed your mind? Do this often? Read some wacked out 'legal' expert and you then worship them like the demigod they aren't?

Yes, I've changed my mind. And your ad hominem insults aren't helping your case. The mask comes off, and the bitch comes out, eh?

They were crafting a nation - they certainly saw that a 100% consensus was a ridiculous way to try to form or even to try to give a country any set of laws, so they changed. Guess what, they could do that - they were making up the rules...

Wrong. They were trying to give the Central government power to exert over the states and the people.

Ah the swiss - compulsory insurance, an immense welfare system, anti-individualist politics, embodied in the Federal Council, just your sort of place Foss -

Dumb, fox. Really. Red herrings, now?

Yep - knew that - but once again - the states still had to ratify the constitution. It could have been written by rabbits on toilet paper - it didn't make any difference on who voted on it at the convention - it wasn't law until the states ratified it.

Not true, despite your attempt to obfuscate. Only a percentage had to ratify.

You really want to scrap it? You really believe that the founding fathers put in a back door so the federal government could become what they 'envisioned' 100 years later - after Lincoln? They were patient men...

Yeah. And I can prove it. Roll your eyes all you want, but if you continue to show contempt for me in this discussion, I'll continue it without you. Are you interested in a good faith talk about this, or are you just going to mock?

blah yourself - you are the one rambling all over - do you know how hard it is to keep up with a conspiracy theorist - which is what you are stating Foss -

And the insults continue. Do you have an open mind or are you stubbornly disinterested in learning anything new?

that the founding fathers conspired to create a document that would, long after their deaths, create a government that was nothing like what they purported, or what they lived under. They were content knowing that their great, great (and many more greats) grandchildren would live in a 'national' government instead of the Federal government that they just gave lip service to, died for? That they created a whole government to create a false sense of federalism? Heck, they were probably hoping by this time we had collapsed from their unrealistic Constitution, and truly could finally see their vision - nationalistic fascism...

Are you nuts?

And another insult. Have you been reading the quotes I've been posting by the founding fathers? Are you blind?

You stated that SCOTUS had no way to overrule - it does - I showed how - however you have some sort of blind rage blinders on at this point - Do you really think it would be good to allow the people to pressure the court - the constitution would be in shambles if that were allowed.... it would become a document of the moment - you really don't understand that do you - how you can't have government that is answerable only to the moment... that becomes anarchy.

Blind rage blinders? LOL

Um...no. That's a false choice. What is Webster's definition of 'government of the moment?' I never advocated anything like what you're saying, so what you're doing now is a straw man argument. Care to revise...or scrap? It's sad that you are so myopic that you can only think of one possible solution to the problem, freeze it, isolate it, attach it to me, and ridicule it. Really, fox. Can you give Alinsky a rest?

How is that packing for Estonia going? Or have you decided on Bern - good luck - happen to know what the cost of living is in Switzerland?

And the insults continue.

You gotta quit reading Rivera...

??? Who's Rivera?

 

[fossten]

type slow? or brain just slow... your post #22 changed dramatically from when I answered it... maybe you can put together a little synopsis of all the points you changed... you seem to change a lot Foss - can't make up your mind, still working out those conspiracy theories?

Waaaaaah! Sorry you don't like my editing, but I do have additional thoughts and I do like to perfect my work.

Like you care, anyway, fox, you cherrypick my posts anyway...

Keep up the stomping of your wittle feet, though, it's amusing.

Insulting continues, folks...very telling. Making the thread about you...trolling.

Been boning up on your Alinsky lately?

 

[foxpaws]

Um...You really are a piece of work, trying to literally flip the argument around on Cal. The problem is, you already staked out a position on this issue by saying this:
Never mind the obvious and laughable non sequitur - you simply CANNOT have it both ways, fox. TSK. TSK.

I'll just wait for Cal - he is at least rational.

 

[fossten]

I'll just wait for Cal - he is at least rational.

No competent argument - check.

Insult - check.

Abandonment of discussion - check.

Run away! Run away!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

Dare I use this tag? *owned*

 

[foxpaws]

The circumstantial, historical evidence clearly supports the Constitution being conceived, planned, debated, ratified, and executed with the goal of relentless, unstoppable federal expansion at the expense of the States, the people, and freedom in general..

Really Foss -
Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin et al, were against freedom in general.
I just want to make sure that everyone here knows what you are extolling...

Foss- not abandonment - however, I have learned long ago, arguing with people who are conspiracy theorists is futile.

Has no rational explanation on why the founding fathers would live under and extol the virtues of federalism and freedom for all, but would create a document that would by their design (in his mind) morph predictably over many generations to become a tool for fascist nationals... check

Crazed conspiracy theorist... check....

Young earth creationist... check...

Want to go with lizard people too Foss... watch 'V'?

 

[Calabrio]

Increase - 2.88 times... almost triple Cal...

Thanks. I was looking and could only seem to find the '92 number.

You can play the numbers game - but I really do like Truman's adage - the buck stops here -

And there are times and situations where a person needs to say that. But there are also times, especially in government, or when you have equal branches of government, where it's inappropriate to explain away a situation by stopping the buck on a single person.

I would argue that it's unfair to have the buck stop on Reagan and blame him for the deficit. However, I don't think it's entirely unfair to do the same things to George W. Bush during his first six years.

but it was Tipp's congress that created the scenario that brought down the wall. They approved the defense spending - they held the purse strings...

While I would tend to agree that there were still more patriotic, anti-communist, Democrats in power back then than now. You're example doesn't work. And it apparently took a lot of pork spending to get those Democrats to reluctantly authorize the military spending.

And they had nothing to do with Reagan's simple, principled boldness and vision when dealing with the Soviets.

People don't like suffering - it is all about me, me, me. The teabag party is about me, me, me, so are the Dems and Reps.

I can't tell you what the "tea bag party" is all about.
I don't know of a "tea bag party." But the Tea Bag Protests are too decentralized for me to attribute any one concept to it. Personally, I think the "teabag" identity has about run it's course.

But for the most part, the people there aren't being selfish, they are protesting for sustainability, responsible government, and a return to constitutional principles.

As I mentioned, it's too decentralized for me to comment much on. I can say one thing and you can easily find an individual person attending who will contradict me.

I don't have time to complete the response, but I just wanted to acknowledge your correcting me on the debt figure of the 80s.

 

[foxpaws]

Thanks. I was looking and could only seem to find the '92 number.

Comes in handy...

And there are times and situations where a person needs to say that. But there are also times, especially in government, or when you have equal branches of government, where it's inappropriate to explain away a situation by stopping the buck on a single person.

I would argue that it's unfair to have the buck stop on Reagan and blame him for the deficit. However, I don't think it's entirely unfair to do the same things to George W. Bush during his first six years.

While I would tend to agree that there were still more patriotic, anti-communist, Democrats in power back then than now. You're example doesn't work. And it apparently took a lot of pork spending to get those Democrats to reluctantly authorize the military spending.

And they had nothing to do with Reagan's simple, principled boldness and vision when dealing with the Soviets.

It probably is unfair to blame any one branch entirely for budget problems... both the executive and legislative have their gooey fingers in all budgets... However, because of Reagan's insistence on large increases in military spending during peacetime, he left the door open for Tipp's house to play "Let's Make a Deal"... He acquiesced and the result was huge deficits, just to get his single item agenda through.

And, you also need to remember during 6 years of Reagan's administration he did have the Senate on his side as well...

But, once again - if you blame Tipp's house for the deficit, you also need to give them some credit for passing the budget with Reagan's additional military spending in it...

I can't tell you what the "tea bag party" is all about.
I don't know of a "tea bag party." But the Tea Bag Protests are too decentralized for me to attribute any one concept to it. Personally, I think the "teabag" identity has about run it's course.

Oh, that would be nice... it is an awful name...

But for the most part, the people there aren't being selfish, they are protesting for sustainability, responsible government, and a return to constitutional principles.

What I have seen of them, it is a lot of me... certainly with overtones of what you had mentioned - the 'principles'. But, a lot of it seems to be 'don't tax me, don't use my money for people I don't think are deserving, don't allow for things I don't agree with'. Not entirely of course-and certainly everyone has issues with taxes. But, being so individualistic, they have forgotten that to affect change, they will need to embrace some 'us' as well. The founding fathers might have been incredible individualists, but, they certainly knew the value of a 'united' and cohesive group.

As I mentioned, it's too decentralized for me to comment much on. I can say one thing and you can easily find an individual person attending who will contradict me.

It is part of the reason I see the group failing - decentralized just doesn't cut it in national politics.

 

[fossten]

Really Foss -
Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin et al, were against freedom in general.
I just want to make sure that everyone here knows what you are extolling...

Foss- not abandonment - however, I have learned long ago, arguing with people who are conspiracy theorists is futile.

Has no rational explanation on why the founding fathers would live under and extol the virtues of federalism and freedom for all, but would create a document that would by their design (in his mind) morph predictably over many generations to become a tool for fascist nationals... check

Crazed conspiracy theorist... check....

Young earth creationist... check...

Want to go with lizard people too Foss... watch 'V'?

More straw men and mischaracterization of my argument and my thread. Jefferson was one of the good guys, but he was conveniently out of town. Secretary of State and all. Got sent to Paris.

Have you bothered to read the quotes I posted yet? Seems you're blindly ignoring their words in your weak attempt to attack me personally.

Typical liberal - loses the argument and resorts to personal attacks. Your label of 'conspiracy theorist' doesn't hold up when you review the thread and consider that I've backed up every assertion with facts and quotes, and all you've done is ignore the facts and quotes and mock and accuse. You're really a very angry, weak old woman.

Lizard people...That's like, you know, totally fifth grade or something. Do you really think you're influencing anybody with your childishness?

Really, foxpaws. You're very sad. But that's okay, we don't have to talk anymore.

So, who is Rivera? Or did you make up a name out of thin air?

 

[fossten]

I can't tell you what the "tea bag party" is all about.
I don't know of a "tea bag party." But the Tea Bag Protests are too decentralized for me to attribute any one concept to it. Personally, I think the "teabag" identity has about run it's course.

Cal, have you bought into Fox's stupid little mis-label? It's a pejorative term that she's giving the Tea Party Movement. She's mocking and you're accepting the premise.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, have you bought into Fox's stupid little mis-label? It's a pejorative term that she's giving the Tea Party Movement. She's mocking and you're accepting the premise.

No, I don't think that's a mocking, I think it's an effort to reference what could be understood as an independent group. If the effort had been to mock, it's far more convenient to call them teabaggers, like the dry-humor queens at MSNBC.

 

[Calabrio]

...he left the door open for Tipp's house to play "Let's Make a Deal"... He acquiesced and the result was huge deficits, just to get his single item agenda through.

The way you've stated this makes it sound like it was some kind of frivolous pet project. Like it was some pork program that he really liked. That wasn't the case. Rebuilding the broken military was critically important and the Cold War amounted to more than just a "single agenda item."

And, you also need to remember during 6 years of Reagan's administration he did have the Senate on his side as well...

Again, very misleading.
Having the Senate with a slim majority, and a weak, accommodating majority party (as the GOP has historically been) really provides no significant legislative advantage. It was a 53/47 split.

Republicans have NEVER held more than 55 seats in the Senate. Unlike the 60 seat nightmare the Democrats have right now.

But, once again - if you blame Tipp's house for the deficit, you also need to give them some credit for passing the budget with Reagan's additional military spending in it...

Only if they supported the actual policies....

What I have seen of them, it is a lot of me... a lot of it seems to be 'don't tax me, don't use my money for people I don't think are deserving, don't allow for things I don't agree with'.

I haven't seen that.
I've seen "Don't tax me. Don't steal from me. Don't redistribute my life's work." But the rest of that is something that you're adding.

It has nothing to do with with restricting private behavior or trying to influence who the government redistributes money to.

It is part of the reason I see the group failing - decentralized just doesn't cut it in national politics.

As mentioned, I think the Tea Party associations are a temporary one.
It's value was that it allowed people and outlet to express their outrage, but just as importantly, it's bringing people who might otherwise feel left out of the political system together. It built associations.

As of right now, I personally find it offensive when guys like Dick Armey try to co-opt the events as their own, or presume that the energy that is associated with the TeaParties automatically will be transfered to the GOP candidates.

I do think the 9/12 Groups do have strength though. They are all local and independent, but they have stated principles and values and many of the groups political organization is strengthening at the local level.

Doug Hoffman in NY 23 was a 9/12 Member.

And Glenn Beck, the unofficial head of the group, is investing genuine effort into it helping all of these libertarian minded groups organize politically and socially.

 

[fossten]

No, I don't think that's a mocking, I think it's an effort to reference what could be understood as an independent group. If the effort had been to mock, it's far more convenient to call them teabaggers, like the dry-humor queens at MSNBC.

You *did* call them teabaggers.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss- I have read your quotes – do you want a litany of quotes where these same men stood by freedom and state’s rights, how they crafted a federal form of government – you have a handful – I could give you a truckload full…Lets just start with Adams, and one of the very best quotes with regards to state’s rights.

But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association - will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.​

Wow – it certainly sounds like Adams was for state’s rights – was he just that interested in pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes – forever – and create a document that would eventually (however, not during Adam’s lifetime, or his children or grandchildren’s) cognizant-ly create a nationalist form of government?

Oh, you label Jefferson as a good guy- really – have you read all the letters between Jefferson and Adams and Madison while they were crafting the constitution? Jefferson’s ideals and words and concepts are all over the constitution and the Bill of Rights… He needs to sit in your Founding Fathers are really Nationalisitic Fascists boat as well.

The states had been losing rights before the Civil War (one of many reasons the South attempted to succeed from the union), and the states have lost many more since the Civil War. And since the end of the civil war the states have just taken it Foss – for one tiny moment a group of states tried to stand up – that doesn’t excuse the fact for over 150 years the states have willing let their rights slip away.

Oh, you brought up the swiss and their form of government – which involves a lot more than one state one vote – I just wanted to make sure you understood it really is a very difficult way to govern a very small country, and an impossible way to govern a very large country.

You also advocated that the people have control over the supreme court – that is government of the moment foss… If you allow the mob to judge what is constitutional and what isn’t, you have mob rule, government of the moment. And the supreme court very rarely overrules itself – it shouldn’t. All it should be doing is reviewing cases and holding them up to the laws set in the constitution. Now of course there is debate on whether they really do that, but it is the reason that very few cases get re-reviewed.

And your piece from the Whig rebuttal to the constitution (the letter from the Boston Gazette) – I have read that before – have you found who it is attributable to? I have always seen it as an angry, annoymous editorial. Heck - they happened back in the 1700s too...

Riveria – obviously you don’t read my links – odd that he espoused some of same stuff you are… however I think he did it back in March…

What you are implying - that somehow the founding fathers really wanted a nationalist form of government - but knew they had to appease state rights for many decades (and long after their deaths) before their evil plan could come to fruition is conspiracy theory Foss-

 

[fossten]

Foss- I have read your quotes – do you want a litany of quotes where these same men stood by freedom and state’s rights, how they crafted a federal form of government – you have a handful – I could give you a truckload full…Lets just start with Adams, and one of the very best quotes with regards to state’s rights.

Red herring much? You still refuse to respond to the quotes I've posted. Instead, you try to misdirect by posting a quote of your own, as though by doing so, you invalidate all my evidence. But no matter, I'll destroy your point forthwith.

But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association - will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.​

Wow – it certainly sounds like Adams was for state’s rights – was he just that interested in pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes – forever – and create a document that would eventually (however, not during Adam’s lifetime, or his children or grandchildren’s) cognizant-ly create a nationalist form of government?

That's a weak quote, fox. Did you even read it? He's pretty specific about what circumstances he thinks are sufficient for changing government. Not a lot of wiggle room there. Have you ever heard of the terms 'lip service' and 'preponderance of evidence?' How about the flawed 'exception proves the rule' argument?

Basically it says, "if the 'pee-pul' can't get along to the extent that they are physically violent with each other, we'll have another convention and REALLY put the screws to them."

Another interpretation could be - "We've written this Constitution so that it can't be changed unless the whole shebang comes to a crashing halt."

If you were interested in discussing this rather than just dripping vitriol and name calling, we might actually get somewhere.

By the way, when did he write this? Before or after the Convention in 1787? Sounds like a red herring to me, considering he's referring to the Confederation. Nice try fox. You FAIL.

Oh, you label Jefferson as a good guy- really – have you read all the letters between Jefferson and Adams and Madison while they were crafting the constitution? Jefferson’s ideals and words and concepts are all over the constitution and the Bill of Rights… He needs to sit in your Founding Fathers are really Nationalisitic Fascists boat as well.

Have you read all the letters? Can you quote all of them? Oh, so now you're agreeing with my point? I'd be glad to read any quotes you furnish, and I'll furnish more for you.

Well, fox, which is it - are they Fascists or not? Just like the Reagan flip flop, you can't sit on both sides of the fence. You've already staked out a position.

The states had been losing rights before the Civil War (one of many reasons the South attempted to succeed from the union), and the states have lost many more since the Civil War. And since the end of the civil war the states have just taken it Foss – for one tiny moment a group of states tried to stand up – that doesn’t excuse the fact for over 150 years the states have willing let their rights slip away.

You're calling the near depopulation of our country's men a 'tiny moment?' How quaint.

So, did this 'erosion' of states' rights happen in violation of the Constitution? You've already admitted that it was designed to happen. Are you backpedaling, or can you just not decide? You still haven't answered this question.

Oh, you brought up the swiss and their form of government – which involves a lot more than one state one vote – I just wanted to make sure you understood it really is a very difficult way to govern a very small country, and an impossible way to govern a very large country.

How kind. You still haven't responded to 90% of my points in this thread. I have responded with good faith to every one of yours. But thanks for looking out for me.

You also advocated that the people have control over the supreme court – that is government of the moment foss… If you allow the mob to judge what is constitutional and what isn’t, you have mob rule, government of the moment. And the supreme court very rarely overrules itself – it shouldn’t. All it should be doing is reviewing cases and holding them up to the laws set in the constitution. Now of course there is debate on whether they really do that, but it is the reason that very few cases get re-reviewed.

I never advocated any such thing. Please show the quote where I said that. You are repeating a straw man argument. What's the matter, run out of things to say? No more insults, so you resort to rehashing old, useless arguments? Are you unable or unwilling to construct a new one?

While we're on the subject, do you believe it's a good idea to give ultimate decision power to a handful of unelected individuals who are on the same side as the government they are supposed to 'balance?' How is that not tyranny?

And your piece from the Whig rebuttal to the constitution (the letter from the Boston Gazette) – I have read that before – have you found who it is attributable to? I have always seen it as an angry, annoymous editorial. Heck - they happened back in the 1700s too...

Is there a point in our future, or are you just blathering again?

Riveria – obviously you don’t read my links – odd that he espoused some of same stuff you are… however I think he did it back in March…

Uh - you never linked that in any post that I'm aware of.

What you are implying - that somehow the founding fathers really wanted a nationalist form of government - but knew they had to appease state rights for many decades (and long after their deaths) before their evil plan could come to fruition is conspiracy theory Foss-

I'm not implying anything - I'm saying it directly. Actually, it's very clear in their writings, some of which I've posted here. Do you want to see more?

Again, I've posted quotes and facts to back my statements. So far your arguments have been nothing but feigned incredulity and name calling.

Next.

 

[fossten]

Quiz of the day:

After the Constitution was ratified by 9 states, the Congress met to add the Bill of Rights, mainly to silence the angry outcry. The states all submitted proposals for amendments.

How many different proposals did the states send, and who culled them down to a very small number?

 

[Calabrio]

That's where you're wrong. The Constitution is a great basis for a NATIONAL government, not a federal government. There's a difference, not that you'd know it. Oops!

No, it's a great basis for a federal government.
There have been changes made during the 20th century that AMENDED the constitution making it more national, like the 17th Amendment. And there have been examples of judicial over reach that vastly expanded the national aspect, such as the absolutely ridiculous ruling regarding the application of the commerce clause.

But don't confuse the founding documents with the acts of 20th century progressives have bastardized it in their effort to make it into something it was never supposed to be.

Actually, very few of our founding fathers had a say in how the Constitution was written, and the states were basically frozen out. Most of those who wrote the Constitution were politicians, lawyers, and writers. While I admit that I was taught 'document worship' as a child, now that I've examined the evidence, I have realized that it was designed with a coup de'tat in mind.

Are you saying that the Constitution was written with the purpose of over throwing the constitution? That the constitution was designed to consolidate and centralize power? That simply doesn't make sense.

Are you familiar with the federalist papers, the anti-federalist paper, and the very public debate that was held in the papers?

 

[foxpaws]

The way you've stated this makes it sound like it was some kind of frivolous pet project. Like it was some pork program that he really liked. That wasn't the case. Rebuilding the broken military was critically important and the Cold War amounted to more than just a "single agenda item."
The way you've stated this makes it sound like it was some kind of frivolous pet project. Like it was some pork program that he really liked. That wasn't the case. Rebuilding the broken military was critically important and the Cold War amounted to more than just a "single agenda item."

Sorry Cal - it is just that it was so obvious that communism was failing (which it was destined to do - it doesn't work at all), that Reagan's plan to out spend the Soviets to bring them down seems so unnecessary. The USSR was falling and capitalism was winning-why did we need to spend so much.

However, I do agree that some rebuilding of the military had to happen - just not to the extent that Reagan was obsessed with it.

Again, very misleading.
Having the Senate with a slim majority, and a weak, accommodating majority party (as the GOP has historically been) really provides no significant legislative advantage. It was a 53/47 split.

Republicans have NEVER held more than 55 seats in the Senate. Unlike the 60 seat nightmare the Democrats have right now.

The senate was a republican majority - which does make a significant difference when it reflects the president's party - similar to the slim lead Bush had in the 107th and 109th congress.

And it is a nightmare that the Dems have 60 seats - I actually think things were working well when we had a Dem president and a Rep congress - like we had during Clinton.. The checks and balances were working better then they had for a long, long time. This combination of congress and the executive office just looks to be disaster in the making.

I haven't seen that.
I've seen "Don't tax me. Don't steal from me. Don't redistribute my life's work." But the rest of that is something that you're adding.

It has nothing to do with with restricting private behavior or trying to influence who the government redistributes money to.

I actually looked at a lot of information regarding the 9-12 project and sort of think of it as a guiding force behind the tea party - the 2nd principle is: I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. With this group there seems to be an effort to put their God in the center of my life, from the conversations that I have had. It could be luck of the draw, but I did get a lot of the ideal that we need their specific idea of God, we all need it.

I do think the 9/12 Groups do have strength though. They are all local and independent, but they have stated principles and values and many of the groups political organization is strengthening at the local level.

Doug Hoffman in NY 23 was a 9/12 Member.

And did you think that Doug Hoffman was a good candidate? I assume you saw his interview on Beck?

but, I would much rather get back to this topic - where I really do think it is easy to agree - there is no way the Constitution was drafted to create a National government...

 

[foxpaws]

That's a weak quote, fox. Did you even read it? He's pretty specific about what circumstances he thinks are sufficient for changing government. Not a lot of wiggle room there. Have you ever heard of the terms 'lip service' and 'preponderance of evidence?' How about the flawed 'exception proves the rule' argument?

Well, Foss – Adams’ quote is most often used when the subject of secession comes up – for example, when the South decided to secede from the union. It is sort of the basis that almost everyone uses when they discuss how the founding fathers allowed for the states to dissolve the union.

However, I guess in your 'conspiracies' mind set, it has taken on an entirely different meaning, since Adams was so obviously a devious nationalist.

Oh, he said this in 1839- why? He is obviously talking about the constitution.

Have you read all the letters? Can you quote all of them?

And you can read them too Foss... if you go to the Jefferson Library site – you can read all of his numerous letters to Adams and Madison around the time of the constitutional convention…

And yes, I have read most of them Foss…

Well, fox, which is it - are they Fascists or not? Just like the Reagan flip flop, you can't sit on both sides of the fence. You've already staked out a position.

And I just wanted to make sure that you need to lump Jefferson in with all the other founding fathers that you seem to think are nationalistic fascists. I certainly don’t think they are – you are deliberately misreading that. You are smarter than that Foss…

Foss - the only 'quotes' you have are a quip from Henry, Washington's quote and a quote from Madison in the Federalist paper #43, these are the only 'backings' that I have been able to find in your various posts.

If you read all of Washington's letter to Jay you will find he is talking about the problems he is having with the states violating a treaty that he fought long and hard to achieve with the British. He is angry at some states for taking it upon themselves to violate this treaty that protected the entire country. You have taken the quote out of context

Madison's quote only makes sense - the reason unanimous consensus is impractical is because it does allow for one member to destroy the group.

So, did this 'erosion' of states' rights happen in violation of the Constitution? You've already admitted that it was designed to happen.

I said the the government was designed to grow, not that states rights were designed to erode, got that quote from me?

I never advocated any such thing. Please show the quote where I said that. You are repeating a straw man argument.

About the supreme court - you stated…

The people have no way to put any pressure on the court.
So, I guess I would ask for clarification on that. Wouldn't the effect of the people being allowed to pressure the court is that the people would have control of the court?

Uh - you never linked that in any post that I'm aware of.

The link to Rivera's website was first posted on #15... Have you read his stuff - it is oddly similar.

Foss - so - you actually BELIEVE that somehow the founding fathers really wanted a nationalist form of government - but knew they had to appease state rights for many decades (and long after their deaths) before their evil plan could come to fruition.

That is classic conspiracy theory in action.

 

[shagdrum]

Sorry Cal - it is just that it was so obvious that communism was failing (which it was destined to do - it doesn't work at all), that Reagan's plan to out spend the Soviets to bring them down seems so unnecessary. The USSR was falling and capitalism was winning-why did we need to spend so much.

"The Soviet Union is not now, nor will it be during the next decade, in the throes of a true systemic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability"
-Seweryn Bialer; Columbia University in 1982

"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene...One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets...and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops...Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."
-Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984

"What counts is results, and their can be no doubt that the soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth"
-Nobel laureate (in economics) and MIT professor Paul Samuelson in 1985

"Today [the Soviet Union] is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States"
-Lester Thurow; economist in 1989

Can you say "revisionist history"?

 

[Calabrio]

Sorry Cal - it is just that it was so obvious that communism was failing (which it was destined to do - it doesn't work at all), that Reagan's plan to out spend the Soviets to bring them down seems so unnecessary. The USSR was falling and capitalism was winning-why did we need to spend so much.

It might seem "unnecessary" with the benefit of hindsight, it didn't at the time. And I still don't think it was unnecessary.
And it certainly didn't at the beginning of Reagan's Presidency. And military spending wasn't the sole cause of the implosion either.

I actually looked at a lot of information regarding the 9-12 project and sort of think of it as a guiding force behind the tea party -

Again, to be clear, I don't know who the "tea party" is. I don't know of any authentic organization behind it. I really can't speak to it because I don't really think it "is." Tea Party, to me, really refers to the natural and spontaneous, decentralized protests that took place during 2009. The event, not the people.

There isn't any direct association behind 9/12 groups and the "tea party" other than the fact a lot of 9/12 people participated in Rallys that were also also dubbed "Tea Parties." And 9/12 groups are completely decentralized, local, libertarian in nature, and independent. But the groups do have a philosophy, shared principles, and an evolving goals.

You also have the "Tea Party Express" stuff, and I think that's the one associated with Dick Armey. I don't know what to make of that. They strike me as a group trying to co-opt the energy of the crowd.

You could argue that this is what the "tea party" is, but I don't know. At best, I think that the vast majority of people who attend the events are doing it as a cathartic way of trying to get their voice heard, complete unaware of the "Our Country Deserves Better PAC." It's a partisan PAC and I think there are plenty of Republicans who deserve blame for our situation too.

the 2nd principle is: I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. With this group there seems to be an effort to put their God in the center of my life, from the conversations that I have had. It could be luck of the draw, but I did get a lot of the ideal that we need their specific idea of God, we all need it.

Well, I don't know who your talking to.
Your friend has a desire to do that, but that "2nd Principle" has nothing to do with proselytizing what so ever.

And did you think that Doug Hoffman was a good candidate? I assume you saw his interview on Beck?

I thought he was the best candidate in the race.

To quote your favorite writer Bill Buckley,

"I would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty."

but, I would much rather get back to this topic - where I really do think it is easy to agree - there is no way the Constitution was drafted to create a National government...

And you and I agree on that point...

 

[foxpaws]

"The Soviet Union is not now, nor will it be during the next decade, in the throes of a true systemic crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability"
-Seweryn Bialer; Columbia University in 1982

"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene...One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets...and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops...Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."
-Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984

"What counts is results, and their can be no doubt that the soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth...The Soviet model has surely demonstrated that a command economy is capable of mobilizing resources for rapid growth"
-Nobel laureate (in economics) and MIT professor Paul Samuelson in 1985

"Today [the Soviet Union] is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States"
-Lester Thurow; economist in 1989

Can you say "revisionist history"?

Shag - perhaps we should move this to a different post - where we could discuss how beginning in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev made significant changes in the economy and the party leadership. His policy of glasnost freed public access to information after decades of heavy government censorship, which allowed the soviet people to really see what they were missing. The people's access to information, and the beginning of the rise of capitalism within the soviet block countries both played huge parts in the fall of the soviet union.

 

[fossten]

No, it's a great basis for a federal government.
There have been changes made during the 20th century that AMENDED the constitution making it more national, like the 17th Amendment. And there have been examples of judicial over reach that vastly expanded the national aspect, such as the absolutely ridiculous ruling regarding the application of the commerce clause.

But don't confuse the founding documents with the acts of 20th century progressives have bastardized it in their effort to make it into something it was never supposed to be.

I'm not confused, Cal. Don't presume to know things you haven't researched or read. You're literally telling me that I'm wrong without hearing all the evidence. I'm positive that you haven't done all the research on this. Are you not interested?

I have a question for you - if the Constitution does not grant any powers to the government except those expressly reserved, why does the Constitution also expressly prohibit certain powers? For example, the clause that says, "No title of nobility shall be granted by Congress" must have no meaning at all, or it implies that were it omitted Congress would have the power in question.

Are you saying that the Constitution was written with the purpose of over throwing the constitution? That the constitution was designed to consolidate and centralize power? That simply doesn't make sense.

No, it makes perfect sense. The Constitution was written with the purpose of replacing the Articles, which is contrary to the expressed reason for the Convention - which was to revise the Articles. Doesn't that bother you at all? The Articles didn't give the Fed enough power to suit the elites such as Hamilton and Washington. This is evidenced in their writings. But I've already covered this, Cal. Did you not read my entire posts?

Are you familiar with the federalist papers, the anti-federalist paper, and the very public debate that was held in the papers?

Yes, I am. Are you aware that the 'federalists' were actually nationalists, and that they adopted the term 'federalist' as a sham to fool the people? Yeah, the anti-federalists were the true federalists.

Are you aware of this, Cal:

When the federalist majority in Pennsylvania called, on Sept. 28, for an October ratifying convention, anti-federalists (horrified by the rash, early date) prevented a quorum by boycotting the afternoon session. The next day, the federalists ordered the sergeant-at-arms to look for absentee anti-federalists - and with the help of a mob two of them were forcibly brought to the State House. Quorum achieved, the assembly called for a Nov.20 convention.

Are you also aware that the Constitution was never submitted to a popular vote, except in Rhode Island, where it was rejected? Ratification was by state convention composed of delegates drawn mostly from the wealthy and lawyers. The voting was rushed through in 10 months, negating any chance for public consideration.

By contrast, the Articles of Confederation took four years to ratify, and this was during wartime. The Bill of Rights took two years.

Another interesting tidbit, Cal - of the 55 delegates who voted at the Convention, 6 had died by 1789, so 49 were left. 39 of those remaining 49, 80%, would hold some office under the new Constitution. Eighty percent, Cal. That includes two presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 justices, 11 senators, and 8 representatives. Can you say conflict of interest?

"Let's make this new government really powerful because we will be running it!"

 

[fossten]

but, I would much rather get back to this topic - where I really do think it is easy to agree - there is no way the Constitution was drafted to create a National government...

Ah yes, back to the ol' foxpaws groupthink.