Some election observations (long winded)

You're statements are either devoid of facts or run completely contrary to factual information freely available to anyone on the internet. I've quoted the statement you made and then corrected it with data I found, and cited so you can check it's veracity, below.

wcelliot wrote: Our founding fathers (metaphorically) wanted the Federal government setting no speed limits at all ... leaving that to the states. The current Federal government (metsphorically) wants that speed limit around 35mph (about what it is in Europe) to protect us from oursevles...

Actually...

The speed limit on motorways is generally 110, 120 or 130 km/h and the limit in built-up areas is 50 or 60 km/h.

110 kph = 80+/- mph

50 kph = 30+/- mph

Link.

Stick with me. That's my warm-up lap.

wcelliot wrote: As to Sweden, they became a very wealthy country due to rampant capitalism from the late 1800's forward... combined with extremely restrictive immigration policies. By the 1960's, they had a per captia income near that of the US. Then they created the welfare state.

Between 1750 and 1850, the population in Sweden doubled....Sweden remained poor, retaining a nearly entirely agricultural economy even as Denmark and Western European countries began to industrialize. Link

wcelliot wrote: In just a few years, Sweden was a tax and regulatory nightmare. Economic growth nearly stopped, they fought massive inflation, their currency was nearly worthless, etc. In the 1980's they liberalized their policies, reducing taxes, doing privatization of numerous Government functions, etc.

After World War II a succession of governments expanded the welfare state by raising the tax level. During this period Sweden's economic growth was also one of the highest in the industrial world. A series of successive social reforms transformed the country into one of the most equal and developed on earth. The consistent growth of the welfare state led to Swedes achieving unprecedented levels of social mobility and quality of life—to this day Sweden consistently ranks at the top of league tables for health, literacy and Human Development—far ahead of some much wealthier countries (for example the United States). Link

wcelliot wrote: This (Sweden) is not a "melting pot" like the US is...

Beside the Swedes, the Sweden-Finns are the largest ethnic minority comprising approximately 50,000 along the Swedish-Finnish border, and 450,000 first and second generation immigrated ethnic Finns. Also in the farthest North a small population of Samis live. More than 100,000 Assyrians/Syriacs live in Sweden, including around 40,000 in Stockholm County. The first group of Assyrians/Syriacs moved to Sweden from Lebanon in 1967. Many of them live in Södertälje (Stockholm), also known as Mesopotälje (after Mesopotamia).[1][2] There are around 40,000 Roma in Sweden. Link

wcelliot wrote: But as alluded to before, the poor in this country live a lifestyle that most of the rest of the world would consider pretty darn comfortable. (The vast majority of poverty comes from irresponsible breeding and failure to work (in the homes of children living in "poverty" (which doesn't count all the Govt assistance they get), the average work hours per week is 18. That's not per person, that's per household. )

From an article on the Global Research website entitled: "“Working Poor” report: Nearly 30 percent of US families subsist on poverty wages. "

These families struggle under poverty conditions despite parents working long hours. According to the report, "Adults in low-income working families worked on average 2,552 hours per year in 2006, the equivalent of almost one-and-a-quarter full-time workers." Link

I hate to be such a jerk here. I just can't sit back and let disinformation be spread. Especially in the service of EVEEEIL like the right wing parties. (That last sentence was a joke son. Laugh when I say that.)

wcelliot wrote: Whenever I tell a teacher that I think the Dept of Education should be eliminated, they immediately accuse me of being anti-education because they get soem funding from DoE. But when I propose taking the DoE budget and distributing it directly to the schools instead (massively increasing the pittance they get after paying for the bureacracy), suddenly they tend to think it's a pretty darn good idea...

Bureaucracy serves a purpose. The purpose is to standardize, across our nation, some standard.

If you just gave Texas DOE money to do with what you please you'd have a bunch of kids in cowboy hats who think evolution is bunk, God created everything, and white guys did all the hard work in building this nation.

If you gave that money to California you'd have a bunch of kids thinking America was started by fascists, anything run with oil is the product of Satan, and that every gender of ethnic group ever "oppressed" deserves a set aside opportunity.

An Education bureaucracy enforces at least a nominal order so that regional prejudices and myopic viewpoints don't ruin a child's education. It servers a purpose besides creating inefficiency.

This is my opinion. As you can see because I haven't posted any links to back up my position.

wcelliot wrote:

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty.

I just cannot get past this statement. This is your belief, but most certainly not mine.

Then you are wrong. It's not an opinion.

Yeah, actually it is your opinion. No matter how much you fervently want to believe otherwise.

If you want to prove otherwise then take EVERY expansion of government power and prove it reduced liberty. I'd advise against it as it's an unending task that you will not succeed in. 100% statements are never correct. <-AH HA! a contradictory statement! I r stewpit!

1988RedT2 wrote: I have nothing against the public library system. As government programs go, it's one of the most beneficial. But it is instructive to see that the original concept was supported by voluntary contributions from library users and not a mandatory tax on all people, users and non-users alike.

Taxes are unpleasant to say the least. But we owe them to our government for various services. Some of them we use and others we don't. We all benefit. It is part of respecting your fellow citizen's.

I could care less about helping church groups. I think they should survive on their own. I'm not going on and on about my tax dollars "wasted" on church groups. Some of my fellow citizen's see that as a very important service and benefit. So be it. I would hope they would respect my wishes to support fire dept's and public education. Even if they deem those services worthless.

There is room in a democracy for everyone as long as we're willing to give some space and compromise. Hyperbole is not conducive to this.

The problem is that alot of whats being discussed isn't hyperbole. And people trying to make it out to be a hyperbole are making a category error.

And they're doing so because of their own predisposition.

In your statement, you're saying we 'owe' taxes for various services. To clarify, though , the only reason we owe them is because the government that we are participants in says so, and not for any other reason like a moral imperative. Its just a simple matter of correctly defining things, and half the time because people want to attach a specific morality to things, the definition starts changing wildly.

Like "jobs created or saved", or "undocumented migrants" and so forth. Even your last line "democracy." This country is a republic.

....it feels like i have to sanitize an issue with someone before I can talk about it with them. Conservative or liberal, lots of pre-conceived notions gets in the way of starting from agreeing on simple facts. With no foundation, discourse is pointless.

(then again... i do like to argue... ^_^)

You absoluely and completely missed my points. And none of your leftist statements on Sweden or poverty disproved any of mine.

I'll give you one example of how badly you are off target with your arguments.

I said that every expansion of Government necessarily results in less individual liberties. That's an unarguable fact. For Government to expand, it had to do so by taking property/liberties from somebody, reducing their individual liberty. There is no example to the contrary.

You countered with "proof" that some expansions of Government result in a net increase in liberties in society overall. That is correct in a number of examples, but in no way disproves the initial claim.

And in fact, that basic sentiment is the basis of all collectivism philosophy. It's not difficult at all to prove (on paper) by reducing the liberties (property) of a few people, you can increase benefits across society.

The caveman with the biggest club believed that, Kings and Emperors believed that, and Marx expressed as "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". They all claimed (and usually beleived) that their actions were for the benfit of society overall. Hitler also strongly believed that.

Using socialism as the basis of my plans, I could proably sit down and come up with a way to spend 100% of your income on projects that would benefit society as a whole more than they benefit you. And in fact, if I could enslave you, I could get even more done for the benefit of society overall. And that's typically how socialism often evolves... because the line keeps moving... but always for the benefit of society overall.

Your positions are mainstream socialist thought (and you express them well...I've seldom read a more empassioned defense of socialism than what you have made) and the majority of the world (at one time or another anyway) thought as you do.

Luckily, our Founding Fathers didn't.

I was wondering how long it would take for Hitler to appear in this thread.

Luckily our Founding Fathers approved of slavery, killing witches, and keeping the vote away from women and blacks too.

Wait, that's not a good thing. You think our Founding Fathers would have kept up with modern society? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have things like Constitutional Amendments if they didn't. We have to progress as time progresses. If not we end up owning slaves and stoning women. Just think of all the societies we think of as barbaric, and then think what would happen if we were so stuck in our beleifs that nothing should change.

Again, thank you for your candor. I wish more leftists would as openly proclaim their disdain for the principles on which our country was founded.

You also might want to study up on why slavery was treated as it was in the Constitution.

I have no problem with Consitutional Amendments; that's why the process is there. If they were being used as designed (instead of reinterpreting the Constitution to the point that there is currently no limit on the Government) then we'd be in a lot better shape.

Bill

Cone_Junky wrote: Luckily our Founding Fathers approved of slavery, killing witches, and keeping the vote away from women and blacks too. Wait, that's not a good thing. You think our Founding Fathers would have kept up with moderrn society? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have things like Constitutional Amendments if they didn't.

The Founding Fathers APPROVED?

They were pragmatists who realized those were social/economic issues that (if addressed at the time) would destroy any attempt to construct and solidy a novel concept of government. To their everlasting credit, they adopted the Amendment process so those (and other) issues could be dealt with when the country was more receptive and ready.

Our Founding Fathers didn't embrace the idea of immediate gratification, as if it even existed at the time.

Sounds like your supporting my point. The usual tag line of the Tea Party about "Founding fathers" has nothing to do with our modern society. I don't want to regress back to our dark times and beleifs.

Our gov't was designed to follow the will of the people, not the whim of the people. Losing an election and trying to destroy the winner was not their intentions.

Cone_Junky wrote: Sounds like your supporting my point. The usual tag line of the Tea Party about "Founding fathers" has nothing to do with our modern society. I don't want to regress back to our dark times and beleifs.

Like capitalism and individual liberties. It's not the first time I've seen these equated with slavery or referred to as unenlightened beliefs.

Have you noticed that I consistently argue for liberty and you constantly vehemently disagree? Exactly what are you arguing for?

Your ideas may not currently be considered unAmerican, but they surely once were...

wcelliot wrote: Any actual "expansion of Government" that you think was done to "expand liberty" actually do so for one party at the expense of taking liberty from another party. You can even argue that the net result was a gain for society overall... but that still doesn't change the cost. In some cases that it an appropriate tradeoff, but it's always a trade-off. If you think Government can expand in ANY area without doing so at the expense of individual liberties, you aren't looking at the situation carefully enough....

I'm pretty sure I disagree. And I'm pretty sure you didn't effectively dispel my 13th amendment example.

Before the 13th amendment, we kept government out of it. They had no role. Then they asserted themselves into the issue, thus expanding their influence. And yet they expanded liberty at the same time. Even your dismissal of the second amendment is pretty weak. I mean, okay, they wrote a law that limited their power. But doing that supposes their authority to do so! If they had stayed out of it, a state could say “no guns here”. But by expanding the power of the federal government they protected liberty. Just did.

Shoot, the creation of a military is an expansion of government that serves the stated purpose of preserving liberty. Establishing rules for elections and overseeing that they are done in a legal and fair manner is an expansion of the power of government that is specifically designed to preserve liberty.

I could go on, and I haven’t even consulted the google machine. I’m working late again, though, so maybe later.

Like I said, I get your point though. I just think you’re overstating it.

Yes, as early as 2 years ago expressing my dissatisfaction with current gov't was considered unAmerican. Now E36 M3ting on everything the President does is not only American, but what the "Founding Fathers" wanted.

I completely understand.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm pretty sure I disagree. And I'm pretty sure you didn't effectively dispel my 13th amendment example. Before the 13th amendment, we kept government out of it. They had no role. Then they asserted themselves into the issue, thus expanding their influence. And yet they expanded liberty at the same time.

Expanded libery overall, yes. I could make a better intellectual argument here to prove consistency, but I'm not going to lest it be misunderstood....

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Even your dismissal of the second amendment is pretty weak. I mean, okay, they wrote a law that limited their power. But doing that supposes their authority to do so! If they had stayed out of it, a state could say “no guns here”. But by expanding the power of the federal government they protected liberty. Just did.

You misunderstand the philosophy of natural rights at play here. The Second Amendment restricts and contracts Government in this area, necessiarily increasing individual liberty. Restricting states rights in many cases could be considered reducing liberty (like not allowing states to legalize pot or imposing a national speed limit) , but not in the special area of natural rights.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Shoot, the creation of a military is an expansion of government that serves the stated purpose of preserving liberty. Establishing rules for elections and overseeing that they are done in a legal and fair manner is an expansion of the power of government that is specifically designed to preserve liberty.

Preserve liberty for society overall... but it still does so at the cost of individual liberties. (The point I've made many times is that this is very often a reasonable price to pay... you just have to realize that you're paying it.) .

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Like I said, I get your point though. I just think you’re overstating it.

It's not overstating it to point out that there is always an individual liberty price to pay when Government expands... the more powerful Government is, the weaker the individual is. Those who want the Government to do this or that often are unaware of both facts... Government can't do ANYTHING without cost...

Cone_Junky wrote: Yes, as early as 2 years ago expressing my dissatisfaction with current gov't was considered unAmerican. Now E36 M3ting on everything the President does is not only American, but what the "Founding Fathers" wanted. I completely understand.

Socialism by its very nature is (or at least once was)unAmerican and is in conflict with the political philosophy on which the country was based. You openly reject that philosophy; why would you take my observation as an insult?

Some dissent is patriotic and some is not... it depends on content/context. When the dissent is indistinguishable from the same criticisms America's sworn enemies use... well, you do the math.

Cone_Junky wrote: Yes, as early as 2 years ago expressing my dissatisfaction with current gov't was considered unAmerican. Now E36 M3ting on everything the President does is not only American, but what the "Founding Fathers" wanted. I completely understand.

bravo.

ignorant wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Yes, as early as 2 years ago expressing my dissatisfaction with current gov't was considered unAmerican. Now E36 M3ting on everything the President does is not only American, but what the "Founding Fathers" wanted. I completely understand.

bravo.

"So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause"

So my dissent is what are sworn enemies use? I don't remember the Taliban promoting National Health Care, regulating the industry that destroyed our economy, or being environmentally concious and energy independent?

Again, disagreeing with Obama is what our country is about. Being upset about W invading a soveriegn nation under false pretenses and being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of our own countrymen is simply unAmerican.

Anything less then living in a cabin in the middle of the woods with a militia is socialism. My points are jihad, your's are John Adam's personal beliefs.

ignorant wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Yes, as early as 2 years ago expressing my dissatisfaction with current gov't was considered unAmerican. Now E36 M3ting on everything the President does is not only American, but what the "Founding Fathers" wanted. I completely understand.

bravo.

Bravo? For what? For showing a hypocrisy that (allegedly) only dates back to a few years ago?

Sorry guys, but contentious political rhetoric existed long before and (thankfully) long after the 1st Amendment was adopted.

Maybe a more positive response would be to consider what one can do to rid ourselves of the problem instead of prolonging it?

In reply to oldsaw:

Don't take this post out of context. It was in reply wcelliot claiming that my views were "once unAmerican".

Please don't deflect.

Cone_Junky wrote: So my dissent is what are sworn enemies use? I don't remember the Taliban promoting National Health Care, regulating the industry that destroyed our economy, or being environmentally concious and energy independent? Again, disagreeing with Obama is what our country is about. Being upset about W invading a soveriegn nation under false pretenses and being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of our own countrymen is simply unAmerican. Anything less then living in a cabin in the middle of the woods with a militia is socialism. My points are jihad, your's are John Adam's personal beliefs.

Thank you again for your candor.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of leftist fascism has only to read this thread.

You are telling me that I have to "get in line" and give up more of my personal liberties for the good of society.

I'm telling you that you have to.... just leave me alone.

And that's the basic difference in the philosophy of collectivism versus that of individual liberties...

Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to oldsaw: Don't take this post out of context. It was in reply wcelliot claiming that my _socialist_ views were "once unAmerican".

Fixed that for you... you're the one who brought up your previous dissent which I had no direct comment on.

My commentary on patriotic dissent was in general... I have a lot of the same dissent that you have with the previous administration.... I apologize for not being more clear about that... going back and rereading my post (which was written specifically with socialism and the concept of social justice in mind) it reads very differentlly when viewed in a different context and wasn't the point I intended to make.

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

I really don't want to get involved with this, but this one's too easy. I have money to buy books. I buy what I want and read it. Liberty! Government takes my money. They buy the library books that they deem proper for me to read. I no longer have the money to buy books. Decrease in liberty!

so you equate money with liberty?

Property rights are an intrinsic apsect of liberty. Money falls under property rights. When the Government takes my money, they are reducing my personal liberty.

ignorant wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Seriously, how does a library system decrease my personal liberty? Please explain this to me.

I really don't want to get involved with this, but this one's too easy. I have money to buy books. I buy what I want and read it. Liberty! Government takes my money. They buy the library books that they deem proper for me to read. I no longer have the money to buy books. Decrease in liberty!

so you equate money with liberty?

do you not?