Jump to content

Future of the DNC - A winning plan


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

ur just sad man. thats statement has racism written all over it. and no im not calling u a racist or playing the race card. our govt, before the Civil War allow ed slaves and went off THIER hard work and (free)labor to build this nation and make the white plantation owners rich. yeah i really wanna have that govt back.

Bah, that's nonsense. First of all, Jaguar wasn't talking about slavery or anything of the sort; rather he was talking about the original governmental structure. I'll let him defend this position as I'm not well enough versed in early American government to do so sufficiently.

quote:

also u said Lotharr's post was BS, y is it cause he was right? truth seems to be painful dont it

Writing complete words seams to be painful don't it?

quote:

Q: who got us into the last 5 or so military conflicts?

A: republicans, ecomonmies can be resurrected, lives cant

Darling, our economy is important, and if a few military casualties are the result of defending that economy, well, I'm all for it. That is what they're paid for isn't it?

quote:

and dragonlady, i never expressed or implied that u mentioned it. i just stated that since u said know vets who thought we benifited, just askin how is further corruption and untrustworthyness worth protecting

And I neither expressed nor implied that I knew any vets who thought we benefited from those wars (or are we talking about drugs now, not that it matters, don't know any of those either). As for corruption and untrustworthiness, you're being dreadfully vague and it's rather hard to follow you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

ur just sad man. thats statement has racism written all over it. and no im not calling u a racist or playing the race card. our govt, before the Civil War allowed slaves and went off THIER hard work and (free)labor to build this nation and make the white plantation owners rich. yeah i really wanna have that govt back.


The only response that deserves, is pull your head out. Race card has been played, I was talking about the federal government at that time.

The states had contracts with the federal government, when the federal government breaks the contract,(constitution of the US) The state has the right to remove itself from that contract.

NO MORE, because of the civil war the federal government is now no longer contractually obligated to keep to that contract.

Time for you to get a life Enigma, because you obviously haven't a clue.

And learn how to spell, your posts are just painful to read.

quote:

also u said Lotharr's post was BS, y is it cause he was right? truth seems to be painful dont it


If you actually think that Lotharr is right, then this country is indeed in trouble.

We have a constitution for a reason, why don't you read it, because you obviously don't know what it says.

I have a copy of it with me at ALL times, if you don't know what your rights are, or your obligations as a citizen, then you need to learn them.

Grow up Enigma and take responsibility for your life.

And did you hear what you actually just said?

If I believe in limited federal government that lives within the constitution of the United States, then I am a racist.

Yep, time to pull your head out Enigma.

[ 11-13-2002, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think I'd like to live under a pre-Civil war

government..that whole slavery thing is a little off-putting. I mean it's great if you were the one benefiting from free labor, but not so good if you're the one getting your foot chopped off.

My problem with conservsatism as a whole is it's veiled references to a return of a Post-WWII

existence in which women , blacks and gays were marginalized and the dominant culture was not reflective of the people who did'nt fit that profile. (male , white , protestant). The repression of the fifties is directly tied to the emergence of the counter-culture of the sixties.

This country is a multi cultural multi racial entity now and wiil NEVER return to the good old days no matter how many Bushes you put in office.

Regarding references made to programs tha liberals created that don't work , I think conservatives say that over and over again without any facts. For example Head Start, a simple breakfast program saves the Govt. three dollars for every dollar spent on each child in the program. Children who aren't hungry learn better. Another fallacy is the percentage of your tax dollar that goes to welfare. Truth , according to ADC figures and the GAO (circa 1996)

it takes up less than 3% of the USA's total budget. Way less than some exotic weapon systems that we just have to have, way less that the cost of NASA's budget. It seems conservatives only have a problem with taxes being spent when it goes in a poor persons mouth , but have no such compuntion when lining the pocket of the military-industrial complex.

It was a Republican (and my personal hero) Dwight D Eisenhower who warned that one of the biggest threats we faced as a nation was this incestuous relationship between the big business and the military.

Lastly , we all pay taxes. We all pay too much. I am for reasonable tax cuts that offer real relief not a bonanza for corporate america who really rake in the benefits. No one is hold ing a gun to my head , it is the cost of doing business. It is unreasonable to assume that all the efforts that are so cavellierly minimalized by the reactionary right as failures , are overlooked. US Public health has all but eliminated certain killer diseases that crippled thousands only 30 or 40 years ago. Vaccinations in public scholls did that. The rate of literacy in this country has increased exponentially in the past 50 years. Our public school system educated poles , italians , germans , irish , latinos and every other ethinic group upon arriving in this country and turned them into citizens. We should be proud of that, a herculean effort turned out by public school teachers and families learning english as second language and how to love our country at the same time.

Do we have problems? damn right we do . But we work on solving them not by retreating into some faulty memory of revistionist history that some of you seem to cling so closely to.

The real difference is that liberals are optimists. We always hope for things to get better we don't pertend to know all the answers and that gets us into trouble. Our candidates say things like "We might have to raise taxes" and lose elections while conservos say "Read my lips no new taxes" get elected and then mumble about revenue enhancement and then raise taxes anyway.

The people have spoken and the President has his mandate. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the great conservative revolution you guys are cracking it up to be. As a great singer once said" the answer my friend is blowin in the wind" and I'm just gonna wait and see how it all shakes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Don't think I'd like to live under a pre-Civil war

government..that whole slavery thing is a little off-putting. I mean it's great if you were the one benefiting from free labor, but not so good if you're the one getting your foot chopped off.

Again, it wasn't slavery that Jag was interested in reinstating and trying to claim otherwise is rather foolish.

quote:

My problem with conservsatism as a whole is it's veiled references to a return of a Post-WWII

existence in which women , blacks and gays were marginalized and the dominant culture was not reflective of the people who did'nt fit that profile. (male , white , protestant).

Nonsense, I can assure you that I, for one, am neither male nor protestant and (at least on the majority of issues) I'm conservative.

quote:

Regarding references made to programs tha liberals created that don't work , I think conservatives say that over and over again without any facts. For example Head Start, a simple breakfast program saves the Govt. three dollars for every dollar spent on each child in the program.

I don't know enough about some breakfast program, but I doubt that's much of a complaint anyway. In moderation that kind of thing makes sense, especially if there is actually a clear benefit, what I object to is giving money to human waste.

quote:

Another fallacy is the percentage of your tax dollar that goes to welfare. Truth , according to ADC figures and the GAO (circa 1996)

it takes up less than 3% of the USA's total budget.

And that's a complete waste of 3% of our government's budget. Perhaps not much of the while, but how much money exactly do you think 3% of our budget represents?

quote:

It seems conservatives only have a problem with taxes being spent when it goes in a poor persons mouth , but have no such compuntion when lining the pocket of the military-industrial complex.

Ok, let's take a look at this. Money given to the poor is exactly that, money given away with no return. Money paid to corporations for developing "some exotic weapon system" or some such not only provides an immediate return, said weapon system (or whatever), but it also supports our economy as well as encouraging technological innovation. So, give money away to some human trash so they can buy cheap bear and worse food, or pay it to corporations for a product and subsequently benefiting our economy and encouraging R&D. Oh dear, what a choice?

quote:

Lastly , we all pay taxes. We all pay too much. I am for reasonable tax cuts that offer real relief not a bonanza for corporate america who really rake in the benefits. No one is hold ing a gun to my head , it is the cost of doing business.

The cost of doing business? Perhaps, but that's no excuse to try to lower said cost, and getting rid of unnecessary aspects of the federal government, as well as reducing money that is wasted on the poor are wonderful ways of doing so.

quote:

US Public health has all but eliminated certain killer diseases that crippled thousands only 30 or 40 years ago. Vaccinations in public scholls did that. The rate of literacy in this country has increased exponentially in the past 50 years.

Yes, I noticed you like to bring up successful programs, but what about things like welfare, or Medicaid and Medicare? What are we getting out of those? A longer life expectancy and higher rate of reproduction for the poor perhaps? I believe that's something we can do without.

quote:

But we work on solving them not by retreating into some faulty memory of revistionist history that some of you seem to cling so closely to.

No, you have your own fallacies which I shan't get into.

quote:

The real difference is that liberals are optimists. We always hope for things to get better we don't pertend to know all the answers and that gets us into trouble.

Yea, you're optimists, and thus you overlook a number of rather gloomy facts. You can't get rid of poverty, and paying money to those who are too incompetent or otherwise incapable is pouring it down a bottomless hole.

Don't blame Jag he's an AMERICAN and can't possibly be expected to know much about Canadian Economics.

Well perhaps nobody but Canadians understand Canadian economics as it seams to works on vastly different principles then economics do everywhere else. Or perhaps I should say it doesn't work on the same principles as economics everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Don't think I'd like to live under a pre-Civil war

government..that whole slavery thing is a little off-putting. I mean it's great if you were the one benefiting from free labor, but not so good if you're the one getting your foot chopped off.


Look at the real point instead of trying to downplay it as some racist crap please.

quote:

My problem with conservsatism as a whole is it's veiled references to a return of a Post-WWII

existence in which women , blacks and gays were marginalized and the dominant culture was not reflective of the people who did'nt fit that profile. (male , white , protestant). The repression of the fifties is directly tied to the emergence of the counter-culture of the sixties.

This country is a multi cultural multi racial entity now and wiil NEVER return to the good old days no matter how many Bushes you put in office.


What the hell are you talking about? Talk about revisionist history.

Republicans AKA conservatives, passed the 13th amendment.

Republicans AKA conservatives, passed the anti bias laws, equal rights for blacks, which were voted against by Democrats all over the map, one of those being none other then Al Gore Sr., yes the ExVP's father.

You see, conservatives believe that everyone should have equal opportunity, whereas liberals believe in equal results.

Let me give you a clue here, there is no such thing as equal results, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!

Republicans AKA conservatives have done MORE for minorities then the democrats ever thought of doing.

So if you're going start throwing around revisionsist history crap, get your history straight first!!

You liberals just piss me off sometimes. You are clueless, you live in this lala dream land where nothing is as it is.

You CANNOT legislate equal results, you can only give equal opportunity and let the chips fall where they may.

With you equal results crap, you create MORE of what you have been trying to fight, your leaders of course understand this, because the more you try and the more programs you put in place, the MORE POWER you have over your individual citizens.

You do not have faith in the individual, or you would LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. You believe that the big government is necessary to take care of all the LITTLE people.

Whereas the conservatives do believe and have faith in the individual and if that individual is given the opportunity, will do what is best for themselves, which in turn is also best for the country.

Again, let's say this ONE MORE TIME, Conservatives have done MORE for minorities then liberals have. We want them to have power over themselves, whereas liberals want power over them. THere is a HUGE difference.

Get your facts straight before you start spouting nonsense.

And as far as Canada is concerned, the socialist haven to the norht of us.

Their military is a joke, their healtcare system is one of the worst in the world, I have had 2 people that I have known personally that have dies because of that system, but they were in their 70's so I guess they don't matter anyway.

Their tax rates are insane, and oh my god they are actually running a balanced budget this year, but have cut everything to the bone or tossed in price controls, which not only hurts innovation and modernization, it also hurts the economy in the long run.

I know about the canadian economy, it is obvious that neither of you do.

Canada's government run healthcare has a finite amount of time left to it, it is dying, and the government is freaking out, they are doing their best to cover it up, but it's not working. Expect to either have it privatized or have your tax rates go up 20%.

[ 11-13-2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw i kno how ta spell, iz jus modify wurds to be understandable and easy ta type. and ta help ur old eyes out i made dis post user friendly.

I hate to make you wrong Jaguar(actually Im enjoying this), but my head isnt up anything or up anywere. And who are you so high and mighty to tell me to grow up and take responsibility for my life. Yes Im young and theres some growing up I still have left to do, as did you at my age,. And I am responsible for my life now. My actions reflect on me, not you, not my parents, not anyone else. Its amazing how people think that the way someone acts online is ow they act in real life, so Jag dont even attempt to second me and how I live my life.

Jaguar and Dragonlady, you both need to learn to read. I wasnt playing the race card, and I never said Jaguar was a racist or wanted slavery back, but if you had enough sense to understand what I said, you would have seen I merely stated that the government of the pre-Civil War era was know to allow slaves, and only part of the population would have been 'rich' as Jaguar so beautifully put it. And thus it has no place in todays society.

Yes I know what the Constitution says, and a lot it is not far from being made illegal. Freedom of speach is shrinking, the right to bear arms isnt far from being gone and the right to a 'fair' trial has been gone for years.

13th amendment is BS anyways, we are still treated without respect, sadly from our own people just as much as from others. And did you know the emacipation proclamation was only made to save the nation. It kept other countries from attacking us. It them feel the war had a moral reason to the fighting, not a separation of a nation. If it wasnt for the threat of other nations forcing our release we would still be on plantations probly.

Race Bannon IV is correct. Americans know less about Canada than they know about us. Sad fact is cause we broadcast anything in the news and we really overwork a story if its about shootings, killings, or other tragic event. The media is a problem as much as our current leaders.

im not even gonna post here anymore, cause its not longer a debate, its an argument. we both arent gonna change our veiws and its a waste of time and effort that can be spent enjoying life.

a wise once told me dont argue with fools, cause people from a distance can tell who is who (and im not calling anyone a fool. but ull ignore this like everything else i put in parenthesis)

[ 11-14-2002, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Enigma ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

btw i kno how ta spell, iz jus modify wurds to be understandable and easy ta type. and ta help ur old eyes out i made dis post user friendly.

Old eyes? I don?t have old eyes darling, but thank you for using conventional spelling; it was getting pretty painful to read that stuff.

quote:

Jaguar and Dragonlady, you both need to learn to read. I wasnt playing the race card, and I never said Jaguar was a racist or wanted slavery back, but if you had enough sense to understand what I said, you would have seen I merely stated that the government of the pre-Civil War era was know to allow slaves, and only part of the population would have been 'rich' as Jaguar so beautifully put it. And thus it has no place in todays society.

Well now darling, I'm not trying to disagree with you or anything of the sort, but you're dead wrong

Seriously though, you say that you don't want to play the race card, but that seams to be exactly what you're doing. If you're trying to say that the government was amoral or any similar nonsense (and I can only guess if that's what you're trying to say as you haven't really said) then perhaps you should consider that Jag is only advocating the government of that time, the people who actually get elected would be modern individuals, and things like blatant racism are frowned upon.

quote:

im not even gonna post here anymore, cause its not longer a debate, its an argument. we both arent gonna change our veiws and its a waste of time and effort that can be spent enjoying life.

What? You mean this isn't your favorite way to spend (waste) time? Well you simply don't know how to have fun then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

quote:

Canada is broke...

Don't blame Jag he's an AMERICAN and can't possibly be expected to know much about Canadian Economics. Huh EPS? (chuckle,chuckle)


*snicker*

quote:

Their military is a joke

OK, list me the countries that hate Canada.

Then list me the countries that hate the USA.

Then tell me why we need a gazillion tanks and choppers and warships.

And the rest is not worth arguing about, afterall, it's 7am, I just woke up from a bad sleep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning,

As a minority I really appreciate being told all the wonderful things conservative have done for us. We must have been blind or just plain dumb not to side with the party of Strom Thurmond who clearly have have our best interest at heart hence the big inclusionary efforts they have made to us over the years.

Also I i'd like to thank the folks who generalize and oversimplify issues they don't understand like social welfare , by referring to poor americans as trash and human filfth. Clearly this is the compassionate conservatism we have heard so much about but heretofore have seen so little of. I happen to work with poor people. Most believe it or not do not wish to be poor. Some are poor out of circumstance and work hard to make up the difference. There are also some who have no intention of finding a job and I agree that is reprehensible. However; most want to work.

They lack the skill and education but not the willingness. 20 years ago there would have been entry level manufactoring jobs but they are gone to Mexico and Taiwan and any where else American business can pay someone substandard wages . But they perservere. Some of my clients work at labor temp agencies that pay 30.00$ a day for eight hours work(they are paid an hourly rate with deductions and recieve daily pay instead of weekly) The work is grueling but it puts food on the table. I then watch as a family struggle to survive on 150.00 per week and guess what they don't ***** about it! They feel happy to have a job. Just as all rich people aren't pricks all poor people aren't trash. It galls me to see someone who through a biological lottery is born to family that cares for them and can take care of them talk about the poor mooching off them.

Dragon Lady , you should feel fortuante that you weren't poor to a Puerto Rican family of 7 in the Red Hook section of the Brooklyn. I feel really fortunate to have been LUCKY enough to be born to two college educated parents who expected the same of me.

These programs that as you say you don't even know about make real differences in peoples lives and more often than any of you would like to beleive these people grow up to productive adults.

I have a "wall of fame" in my office of all the kids I've worked with who have gone on to college , grad school or in some cases just a steady nine to five. I am very proud of that and if not for of these "evil" programs that could not and would not have occurred.

And one last thing, my statement about the Fifties being a repressive era that spawned the sixties , not my idea. It's pretty widely accepted. People in the social work field are required to read about such things and I will list later today a number of books that discuss this phenomenon and how it affected the emergence of the civil rights , women rights and eventually gay rights movements. Also discussed are other factors such as the effects of the dominant media images on TV and film and how that shaped cultural and sub cultural norms such as standards of beauty , familial happiness expectations and assimilation of racial and ethinic groups into the "melting pot"

that concludes class for today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Also I i'd like to thank the folks who generalize and oversimplify issues they don't understand like social welfare , by referring to poor americans as trash and human filfth. Clearly this is the compassionate conservatism we have heard so much about but heretofore have seen so little of.

Who me? I never said human filth, it was either human waste or human trash

As for compassionate conservatism, I haven't a clue, I'm not a compassionate person and I don't really see why anyone would want to be, compassion is a liability.

quote:

I happen to work with poor people.

I wouldn't wan to pry, but what do you do with them exactly?

quote:

Most believe it or not do not wish to be poor. Some are poor out of circumstance and work hard to make up the difference. There are also some who have no intention of finding a job and I agree that is reprehensible. However; most want to work.

They lack the skill and education but not the willingness.

Wanting to have a job is not sufficient; to succeed one must be competent and driven as well. While I admit that it's not easy, nor is it something everyone can do, there is an old saying: where there's a will there's a way. If someone wants it bad enough, is willing to work hard enough, then yes, they can be successful despite starting off poor. There are very few people who are willing to work that hard or who want it that badly however, and thus most people who are born poor die poor, that's the way of things.

quote:

20 years ago there would have been entry level manufactoring jobs but they are gone to Mexico and Taiwan and any where else American business can pay someone substandard wages.

A side effect of having a minimum wage. If companies could pay workers whatever the liked then they wouldn't have to export work to other countries, it's as simple as that.

quote:

Just as all rich people aren't pricks all poor people aren't trash.

Of course not, but anyone who is in effect taking my money without my consent is contemptible in the worst way. Perhaps I should replace trash with thieves; it's probably more accurate anyway.

quote:

It galls me to see someone who through a biological lottery is born to family that cares for them and can take care of them talk about the poor mooching off them.

Dragon Lady , you should feel fortuante that you weren't poor to a Puerto Rican family of 7 in the Red Hook section of the Brooklyn.

Nonsense, I'm fully aware of how fortunate I am (and perhaps a bit jealous of people who are more fortunate), but that's no reason to dwell on it either way. It's just the way things are, and we can feel lucky or miserable or jealous until we're blue in the face, but I rather just get on with life.

quote:

These programs that as you say you don't even know about make real differences in peoples lives and more often than any of you would like to beleive these people grow up to productive adults.

Perhaps, but they do so at my expense. I have no problem with kids growing up to be productive adults, my problem is having to bankroll it.

quote:

I have a "wall of fame" in my office of all the kids I've worked with who have gone on to college , grad school or in some cases just a steady nine to five.

Is getting a stable job such a great accomplishment for these people even after god only knows how much money has been wasted on them? It seams a lot like throwing money out the door, which is even worse as some of it is mine.

quote:

I am very proud of that and if not for of these "evil" programs that could not and would not have occurred.

Again, the problem isn't the result of these programs, but rather the source of funding. If people want to give up large sums of money (and get a tax break in the process) they are welcome to, but my money is mine, and I'd rather like it to stay that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my favorite writers, it goes, Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, and then Walter Williams, oh, and can't forget Anne Coulters.

Here's a Thomas Sowell article, so succint, so to the point, gotta love it!!

quote:

A San Francisco liberal

| 11/14/02 | Thomas Sowell

Now that Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is becoming the Democrats' House minority leader, she is being celebrated as the first woman to hold such a high post. But she is also being described as a "San Francisco liberal" -- which she definitely is.

What do San Francisco liberals do? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so just look at the picture on page 58 of the October 28 issue of Fortune magazine. It shows a small, nondescript wooden house, wedged in between two other houses on a street in San Francisco. The caption reads: "Is this house worth $1.2 million?"

San Francisco liberals, like liberals across the country, spend a lot of time talking and wringing their hands about the need for "affordable housing." Yet, wherever liberals have been politically dominant housing prices are most unaffordable.

Liberals proclaim their concern and compassion for minorities and people with low incomes. Yet these are precisely the people who are being forced out of places like San Francisco, which has the highest rents of any city in the country.

The black population of San Francisco went down 15 percent between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down, since people young enough to have children can seldom afford San Francisco housing.

Despite liberals' professed concern for the poor, San Francisco is increasingly dominated by the affluent. It has the highest average income of any city in the country.

That is not necessarily because San Francisco employers are more generous. People who work in San Francisco, but are not paid high salaries, are likely to be living outside the city -- sometimes far outside -- and commuting to work.

All these things might be considered to be just unfortunate coincidences, if the same patterns did not appear time and time again, in other places where liberals have ruled the roost for years on end, whether in San Francisco or elsewhere. You can see the same thing in elite college towns like Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as in Berkeley across the bay from San Francisco or in Palo Alto, adjacent to Stanford University.

How do liberals manage to leave so much economic and social havoc in their wake, all the while feeling good about themselves and proclaiming their compassion for the poor, minorities, children and others? Economic illiteracy helps, but liberals are also tied in with environmental zealots who promote sweeping bans on the building of housing, using lovely phrases like "open space" and "protecting the environment."

Since housing is subject to supply and demand, like everything else, stifling the supply is enough to cause home prices and apartment rents to shoot up out of sight. History shows clearly that it was not demand which caused the explosive increase in California housing prices that began in the 1970s.

During the decade of the 1970s, when home prices quadrupled in Palo Alto, for example, the population of that city actually declined slightly. The number of children declined so much that several schools in Palo Alto had to be closed.

It wasn't demand that drove the prices up because the average increase in income in California was less than in the rest of the country during the decade when the state pulled way ahead of the rest of the country in the prices of its homes and apartments.

Why did housing prices go up then? Because this was the decade when severe land use restrictions spread through those places in California where liberals were politically dominant. Only in the remaining parts of California could you still find the "affordable housing" that liberals talked so much about.

In recent years, the closing down of military bases has left great expanses of prime land, with magnificent views, available in and around San Francisco. If all this land could be auctioned off on the open market for the building of housing, it could enrich the city, wipe out the housing shortage and bring down rents and home prices. But congressional liberals and San Francisco liberals have made that impossible.

So long as Nancy Pelosi remains in the congressional minority, the rest of the country may escape the effects of San Francisco liberalism. But if such people are ever in the majority, look out!


And Race, if you don't know, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are both Black, like that matters to me, but thought that it might matter to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

OK, list me the countries that hate Canada.

Then list me the countries that hate the USA.

Then tell me why we need a gazillion tanks and choppers and warships.

You better be careful....were still angry at our ÔÇ£peacenikÔÇØ neighbors to the north that prove guns and people can coexist without a mountain of casualties....

If this Iraq thing doesn't go through we may just decide that Bin Laden is hiding in your neck of the woods

quote:

If you actually think that Lotharr is right, then this country is indeed in trouble.

moo ha ha

I never claimed to be right....I leave that honor for you.

[ 11-14-2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to know how I feel about the government we have now compared to the one we are supposed to have.

Read this guy, he will tell you exactly.

quote:

Walter Williams: The Great Generation?

| 11/14/02 | PhilipFreneau

The American generation who suffered through the Great Depression and defeated the tyrannical designs that Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo Hideki had for the world has often been called "the great generation." Will history see it that way? Let's look at it, but first start with a couple of statements from two truly great Americans.

In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."

Your congressman might say, "Madison was all wrong; after all, there's the 'general welfare' clause." Here's what Madison had to say about that: "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments saying, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

When the great generation was born, Congress spent only three percent of the GDP. Today, as the great generation dies off, Congress spends over a quarter of the GDP. There is no constitutional authority for at least three-quarters of that spending.

Let's look at the recent election campaign. Whether it was a Democratic or Republican candidate, for the most part, they won votes by promising to spend the money of their constituents "on the objects of benevolence." They promised to violate the rights of some Americans for the benefit of other Americans. They promised to take money from younger Americans to buy prescription drugs for elderly Americans, take money from non-farmers to give to farmers and take money from wealthier people to give to poorer people. In a word or two, politicians campaigned on an unstated promise to ignore any oath of office to protect and defend the United States Constitution and instead go to work on undermining it.

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame only politicians. For the most part, they're only the instruments of a people who have growing contempt for our Constitution. You say, "Hold it, Williams. Now you've gone too far!" Check it out. How many votes do you think a James Madison-type senatorial candidate would get if his campaign theme was something like this: "Elect me to office. I will protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because there's no constitutional authority for Congress spending on the objects of benevolence, don't expect for me to vote for prescription drugs for the elderly, handouts to farmers and food stamps for the poor. Instead, I'll fight these and other unconstitutional congressional expenditures"? I'll tell you how many votes he'll get: It will be Williams' vote, and that's it.

The "great" generation has transformed the electoral process from voting for those most likely to protect our Divine-given rights to liberty and property, to voting for those most likely to violate those rights for the benefit of others. There's no question that the "great" generation spared the world from external tyranny, but it has outdone any other generation in destroying both the letter and the spirit of our Constitution, and as such produced a form of tyranny for which there's little defense.


Walter Williams knows of what he speaks.

He is intelligent, and has the guts to tell it like it is!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by J.Smith:

neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted.

George Washington didn't want political parties. Our founding fathers STARTED the other ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...