Some election observations (long winded)

wcelliot wrote: We have essentially become the type of Government that we revolted against 200 years ago... and so the great experiment in capitalism and individual liberties has come to an end.

I'm not sure it has come to an end - individual liberty has always been a bit of a dodgey thing we tell ourselves over and over, hoping that repeating it makes it true. The ugly truth is that you are only allowed to exercise it until the government thinks you have had enough. I think the only thing that really changed in my lifetime is the government itself has been more active in quashing them than in the previous century. Maybe because technology makes it possible.

The capitalism part, however, is alive and voracious as always.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The ugly truth is that you are only allowed to exercise it until the government thinks you have had enough. I think the only thing that really changed in my lifetime is the government itself has been more active in quashing them than in the previous century. Maybe because technology makes it possible.

Actually, it's because that during your lifetime, the reinterpretation of the Constitution has removed many of the barriers that kept the Government from doing it previously.

Don't misunderstand me... it's not that the Government is coming crashing through your walls using black helicopters... it's more like the list that ignorant posted... the Government has a hand in virtually every aspect of your daily life now... from the food you eat to the roads you drive on... and if they are involved, there are bureacracies to be fed and regulations to be followed...

And the major change from "Federal Government can't do it unless the Constitution specifically says it can" to "Federal Government can do it unless the Constitution specifically says it can't" is significantly more than an originalist versus non-originalist interpretation difference.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The capitalism part, however, is alive and voracious as always.

My stock portfolio might take issue with you there. ;-)

ignorant wrote: How are we to evolve as a people if we are to not be allowed to change our own government or the government documents of such?

Through the amendment process. If instead of using some convoluted interpretation to push through healthcare, they instead introduced an amendment which read "The congress has the right to enact a healthcare system administered by the federal government." then we'd be cool. I still wouldn't agree with the concept, but it would completely take the constitutionality argument off the table.

The founders were smart enough to know that they wouldn't get it right on the first try, and that an evolving nation would require an evolving government. So they gave a way to accomplish that that was difficult enough that it would not be swayed by whims, but accessible enough that evolution was possible.

In case anyone didn't feel like searching:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

DILYSI Dave wrote: The founders were smart enough to know that they wouldn't get it right on the first try, and that an evolving nation would require an evolving government. So they gave a way to accomplish that that was difficult enough that it would not be swayed by whims, but accessible enough that evolution was possible.

Yes, but unfortunately they underestimated the impatience of the future populace. Nor do I believe they accounted for how human greed would drive so many to twist the law for personal gain.

wcelliot wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The capitalism part, however, is alive and voracious as always.

My stock portfolio might take issue with you there. ;-)

I live in the middle of the Marcellus Shale Gas drilling gold rush. I assure you... the word voracious describes better than good or successful. History will see it re-popularize the term "Robber Baron".

ignorant wrote: The ability to gain property and actually having it are different. You just stated that actually having property gave you liberty.

No, he did not do that in any way. That's just the facile interpretation you forced onto his words to make them look odd.

What he said was that having possessions gave him "more options in the pursuit of happiness." That doesn't mean that his possessions GIVE him liberty; it means that they give him more things to do with the liberty that EVERYONE has. Which, frankly, reinforces the truth that every human has natural rights that do not derive from how much money they possess.

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: As an example, based on current precedent, there is little chance that completely socialized single payer healthcare would found be found unconstitutional.... even though the Constition clearly doesn't grant that sort of power. So through nothing greater than a simple majority vote, the federal Government could suddenly nationalize a huge chunk of the GDP.

but it does not expressly forbid such, as long as it adheres to other laws currently enacted. How are we to evolve as a people if we are to not be allowed to change our own government or the government documents of such?

Here is where the Federal government is expressly forbidden to do anything not specifically approved in the constitution. Just like the SCCA Solo rulebook, if it doesn't specifically say you can, you can't.

The US Constitution said: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here is where major change is allowed to be introduced into the Federal government, but not with a simple majority.

The US Constitution said: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: . For the most part, that means unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the Government from doing something, it can now do it.

Isn't that how most laws work.... I got it.

No, I don't believe that you do got it.

Law, and in particular the US Constitution, is to protect individual human rights. Therefore, when applied to individual humans, the law must be permissive: anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. Only things which infringe on the rights of others are restricted.

But, when the law is applied to government (which can by definition only restrict rights, not grant them, since natural rights derive directly from an individual's existence, not from government fiat) then the law must be restrictive: anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.

Context matters. Just like voicing disagreement can be unAmerican or not, depending on what's being said, not just when/who it is said about.

wcelliot wrote: Ever read the Federalist Papers? There is little doubt what the intent was or the philosophy on which the document was written. And there is little doubt that the interpretation that you support is completely opposite, both in law and philosophy.

Little doubt? Really? The federalist papers are much like the declaration of independence. They are great position papers and interpretations of belief sets but are not law. They've been referenced in case law, but are not law. Sorry. Try again.

Again, It all comes down to which god you worship as James madison said.. "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself" when talking about the constitution. So Madison refutes any other document save the constitution. I'm sure you can find some other kook to refute Madison.

Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

wcelliot wrote: We have essentially become the type of Government that we revolted against 200 years ago... and so the great experiment in capitalism and individual liberties has come to an end.

turn down the hyperbole machine. Did the government we revolted against tax us and then represent us? Cause we have representation now. Did the government we revolted against believe that slavery was illegal? Who is our monarch now? Any elections in that government?

So if you hate it so much.. Take up arms.. Move out.. You're getting ridiculous.

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote: The ability to gain property and actually having it are different. You just stated that actually having property gave you liberty.

No, he did not do that in any way. That's just the facile interpretation you forced onto his words to make them look odd. What he said was that having possessions gave him "more options in the pursuit of happiness." That doesn't mean that his possessions GIVE him liberty; it means that they give him more things to do with the liberty that EVERYONE has. Which, frankly, reinforces the truth that every human has natural rights that do not derive from how much money they possess.

equating liberty with things and money cheapens it and makes it a commodity that can be bought and sold. And it all plays into the right wing obsession with greed and garnering personal wealth. I'm just glad I got a bunch of you guys to admit that.

dinger wrote:

The US Constitution said: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

do some reading about how the 10th amendment came about. At the time. People were trying to get the word "expressly" added to the 10th but failed and they also tried to get rid of the necessary and proper clause which reads..

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Sorry, as it goes in business it goes in politics and it is always better to ask for forgiveness than ask permission. The 10 ammendment says these powers not delegated by the constituion are given to the people. Therefore Us people can change things, cause we've been given the power.

wcelliot wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The capitalism part, however, is alive and voracious as always.

My stock portfolio might take issue with you there. ;-)

Then you are a poor investor. I've 14% return YTD have recooped all losses from 2008 and am chugging forward nicely.

ignorant wrote: equating liberty with things and money cheapens it and makes it a commodity that can be bought and sold. And it all plays into the right wing obsession with greed and garnering personal wealth. I'm just glad I got a bunch of you guys to admit that.

Can I put you on my Ignore list? Because this post is the biggest load of projected BS I've ever read. Bye, cya, and no, I'm not angry, I'm just bored with the idiotic pot-stirring.

Do you even believe this crap, or are you just entertaining yourself?

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Ever read the Federalist Papers? There is little doubt what the intent was or the philosophy on which the document was written. And there is little doubt that the interpretation that you support is completely opposite, both in law and philosophy.

Little doubt? Really? The federalist papers are much like the declaration of independence. They are great position papers and interpretations of belief sets but are not law. They've been referenced in case law, but are not law. Sorry. Try again. Again, It all comes down to which god you worship as James madison said.. "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself" when talking about the constitution. So Madison refutes any other document save the constitution. I'm sure you can find some other kook to refute Madison. Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

wcelliot wrote: We have essentially become the type of Government that we revolted against 200 years ago... and so the great experiment in capitalism and individual liberties has come to an end.

turn down the hyperbole machine. Did the government we revolted against tax us and then represent us? Cause we have representation now. Did the government we revolted against believe that slavery was illegal? Who is our monarch now? Any elections in that government? So if you hate it so much.. Take up arms.. Move out.. You're getting ridiculous.

I'll return to the debate when there is someone to actually debate with.

In other news, apparently not all the liberal nutjobs hang out on the GRM message board: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Did-Obama-Save-cnbc-3152475608.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Duke wrote: Do you even believe this crap, or are you just entertaining yourself?

You'll have to meet me to find out. HA... We can meet at dogfish head or rams head.

Most of the discussions talking about personal liberty came back to money and property, draw your own conclusions,

wcelliot wrote:

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Ever read the Federalist Papers? There is little doubt what the intent was or the philosophy on which the document was written. And there is little doubt that the interpretation that you support is completely opposite, both in law and philosophy.

Little doubt? Really? The federalist papers are much like the declaration of independence. They are great position papers and interpretations of belief sets but are not law. They've been referenced in case law, but are not law. Sorry. Try again. Again, It all comes down to which god you worship as James madison said.. "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself" when talking about the constitution. So Madison refutes any other document save the constitution. I'm sure you can find some other kook to refute Madison. Now. this goes back to my other assertion that you are NOT stating facts, but merely opinions. But since they are veiled in facts or semi-truths most people like to believe them, sorta like Fox News.

wcelliot wrote: We have essentially become the type of Government that we revolted against 200 years ago... and so the great experiment in capitalism and individual liberties has come to an end.

turn down the hyperbole machine. Did the government we revolted against tax us and then represent us? Cause we have representation now. Did the government we revolted against believe that slavery was illegal? Who is our monarch now? Any elections in that government? So if you hate it so much.. Take up arms.. Move out.. You're getting ridiculous.

I'll return to the debate when there is someone to actually debate with.

Other team forfeits, Ignorant wins again. So when I propose some tough arguments you actually leave? Nice.. Is your last name Palin?

Actually, no, it's when you start acting like a shiny happy person that we leave. If you want the forfeit "victory", it's all yours.

And another one is in the books, folks.

this thread was so awesome.

I presented arguments so strong everyone gave up and went home.

you guys really need to ligthen up.. This is the internets. Nothing rational or intelligent goes on here. or should be taken that way.

ignorant wrote: equating liberty with things and money cheapens it and makes it a commodity that can be bought and sold.

I think this is a good point. This is what I was trying to point out in my weird, long winded post yesterday about heading out and living off the land... Okay, it was a weird long winded post written by a very tired man spending way too much time in the office, but all the same, "stuff" or the money to buy stuff hasn't gotten me anything remotely similar to liberty. And there was a time when those with, arguably, the most freedom had the least stuff.

Duke wrote: Can I put you on my Ignore list? Because this post is the biggest load of projected BS I've ever read. Bye, cya, and no, I'm not angry, I'm just bored with the idiotic pot-stirring. Do you even believe this crap, or are you just entertaining yourself?

wcelliot wrote: I'll return to the debate when there is someone to actually debate with.

I don't know guys. Just 24 hours ago we had this call to more intelligent debate. As I said above, I think he has a point worthy of consideration. These responses certainly aren't demonstrating the attitude we were being called to show yesterday.

Debate the guy, or don't debate the guy. Whatever. But don't deride him for crazy ideas if you can't take the time to counter them. If you don't deem his input worth of response, then simply don't respond. No need to say "I'm responding to say I'm not going to respond". What's the point in that?

“You’re full of B.S.” “No, it is yooouuuu who is full of B.S.” Or plugging your ears and saying “I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” Kinda hard to present that as the more informed and intelligent course of conversation.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I'll put forth the idea that both wceliott and Duke have both stated their positions/opinions and are simply tired of Ig's incessant attempts to prove himself right (again).

Ig is, indeed, "right", if only in his own mind. That in no way means he can/will alter the opinions of those who hold opposing views. Eddie, you share some philosophy with Ig, so it's understandable you may want to continue the debate. It's also apparent that neither side is about to be swayed in any substantial manner.

If my observation is accurate, why pursue the discussion?

If I'm wrong, wc and Duke are welcome to refute my assertion or to expand on their reasoning.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Duke wrote: Can I put you on my Ignore list? Because this post is the biggest load of projected BS I've ever read. Bye, cya, and no, I'm not angry, I'm just bored with the idiotic pot-stirring. Do you even believe this crap, or are you just entertaining yourself?

wcelliot wrote: I'll return to the debate when there is someone to actually debate with.

I don't know guys. Just 24 hours ago we had this call to more intelligent debate. As I said above, I think he has a point worthy of consideration. These responses certainly aren't demonstrating the attitude we were being called to show yesterday. Debate the guy, or don't debate the guy. Whatever. But don't deride him for crazy ideas if you can't take the time to counter them. If you don't deem his input worth of response, then simply don't respond. No need to say "I'm responding to say I'm not going to respond". What's the point in that? “You’re full of B.S.” “No, it is *yooouuuu* who is full of B.S.” Or plugging your ears and saying “I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” Kinda hard to present that as the more informed and intelligent course of conversation.

To debate requires thoughts and ideas to discuss, not throwing out the "hate bombs", aka being a Fox news watcher, right wing nutjob, pinko commie whackjob, etc...

To start the name calling cheapens your own argument as you have given up your own argument for name calling. As soon as you name call, I would quit arguing my points too, as you have stepped into intellectual bankruptcy. You are now fighting a argument with emotion when someone wants to debate facts and you have no more facts.

BTW, I love a good trainwreck anyways. It makes passing time in this wonderful, and yet still unemployed, economy easier.

Brian

ignorant wrote:

dinger wrote:

The US Constitution said: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

do some reading about how the 10th amendment came about. At the time. People were trying to get the word "expressly" added to the 10th but failed and they also tried to get rid of the necessary and proper clause which reads.. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Sorry, as it goes in business it goes in politics and it is always better to ask for forgiveness than ask permission. The 10 ammendment says these powers not delegated by the constituion are given to the people. Therefore Us people can change things, cause we've been given the power.

i think one of the problems is that the separation of powers has been intentionally eroded, certainly changing the state's representation of electing its own senators with direct populous elected candidates makes them hardly different from a representative aside from term length and number of people. that one move helped make it closer to a direct democracy rather than protecting states' rights and interests in federal government.

i know we probably disagree with the size/level of 'services' government should be, but my biggest problem is that regardless of what you believe govt should be doing, our Founders fought for a limited centralized govt as the farther away power is wielded the less accountable it is to the individual citizen. your single vote might be 1/5,000 in local elections, thats a pretty good influence/voice to hold elected officials and their actions accountable. statewide could be 1/5,000,000 smaller but still closer to the individual than when your vote represents only 1 of 310,000,000. the more power the federal has the smaller the individual is in relation.

i'd be interested in hearing where you believe Rights come from. are they granted by government or are they simply Natural Rights to be protected from government? a lot of the leftist programs and ideas, especially those outlined in FDR's 'second bill of rights', allude to 'new' rights essentially being granted by government...

I just wasted time reading through what could have been a great civil discussion. Sadly, I can probably guess the age of each person based on how they conduct themselves in a dicussion like this. The glory of the internet, those who are the least civil will always outlast those who are being respectul. I can only be thankful that there seems to be way less of these contentious discussions on my favorite car board!