Our government, then and now

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
Quiet_Knight

Representation

Postby Quiet_Knight » 2010 Mar 12 06:14

At what point are our elected leaders going to realize that they were elected to represent their constituancy. In my opinion that means representing the values and desires of those who elected them. At all levels of government, regardless of party affiliation, our politicians have somehow come to the conclusion that they are wiser than the people who elected them. When the republic was started, I don't believe anyone contemplated an individual making an elected position a lifelong job. Maybe the thought of term limits on all elected positions is in fact the answer. We have allowed a small portion of high ranking elected officials to individually shape America without regard to the values or desires of the American People. Without the corruption associated with the special interest lobby, at local, state, and federal levels, America would be in much better shape.

Silvereagle
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010 Mar 12 08:02

Re: Representation

Postby Silvereagle » 2010 Mar 12 15:34

I agree completely. WE have allowed these things to happen. In times past, Americans would openly and fearlessly protest what they disagreed with. Today, however, we simply shrug our shoulders and say " There's nothing I can do about it. " With that attitude there is nothing that can be done. I may sound like a freak but I believe those of us who disagree with current government practices should get together and protest these activities.

Recently there was a public discussion about the possible closing of a couple schools in the county. One of these was Effinger Elementary. The topic of closing that school has came up many times in the past 20 or 30 years. I attended a meeting at Effinger some years ago for the same discussion. There was probably close to 200 people in attendance. I was disgusted as soon as I walked into the auditorium. There someone had erected a large banner that said "Please don't close our school. " Why were we asking them not to close the school ? We should have been telling them that they would not be closing the school.

I did not speak at the meeting because I figured that someone with as little education as I have would do ore harm than good. We have taken our freedom in this country for granted. Our freedom cannot be maintained by simply letting our elected officials run amock. I am still in amazed that the American people would vote a man in as president such as Obama. A man who proudly carries the religious name of a man who was responsible for the death of thousands. A name that he choose. There are many educated explanations for this but I am a simple person that can only see what is.

User avatar
historyforall
Posts: 31
Joined: 2008 Sep 10 09:47

Re: Representation

Postby historyforall » 2010 Mar 15 21:28

Unless you have millions of dollars to throw at them they are not going to listen. The are owned, controlled and do what the lobby wants them to do. The sad part is everyone just sits back and lets them do it. If you are over 50 the burden rests greatly on your shoulders the big business, uncontrolled government spending rests on the adults of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Instead of voting out these career politicians they were voted into office over and over again. When term limits were brought up before, no one did anything about it, and after congress decided it would not be a good idea everyone just went back to normal. I may have said it before on this forum, for the next few elections always vote out the person in office. It's a small grassroots movement that is trying to make its way across the US, under the name modern revolution or peacefull revolution. The idea is that once these politicians start realizing they need to impose term limits or face getting voted out they will start to come around.

Your power is the power to vote. But we let them control us. Of course a universal medical plan is bad for insurance companies they will lose money, but they have everyone convinced that it is the worse thing that can happen to you (really being able to walk into a hospital and not have to pay thousands of dollars is the worst thing that can happen). The insurance company knows whats best for you so don't let free medical care get in the way of what you really want. Like all those communist/socialist that went to BV last week for free medical care, the nerve of them. Interestingly I saw many people, on the news covering the free medical care in BV, that have said how evil that very concept would be for America. My favorite is still the sign a guy held up at a tea party rally that said "keep your goverment hands off my medicare". For those that dont know medicare is goverment socialism. But, for those of the right age it is ok but for the rest of the population they can, "suck it". This is how they control you, this is how they get you to do what they want. I am using health care as my example because it is the hot topic of the day, but you could substitute any other topic just as well (farming subsidies, environment, etc.).
I believe in the rights and freedoms of a person even when I don't support them on a moral or fundamental basis.

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 713
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Representation

Postby Juggler » 2010 Mar 15 22:00

I like the cut o' yer jibs, Historyforall and Silvereagle. Interesting comments, with some truth in both!

But wait, where in hell did you get this?
Silvereagle wrote:I am still in amazed that the American people would vote a man in as president such as Obama. A man who proudly carries the religious name of a man who was responsible for the death of thousands. A name that he choose.

  • Maybe half the US population carries "religious names", mainly Christian, with ancestors who killed millions. for example, Christian European immigrants to North America deliberately carried smallpox that killed millions of native Americans. So what? Must we hate descendants who bear their names? Abraham Lincoln presided over the deaths of about a million people during the American Civil War. Shall we regard anybody bearing the name "Abraham" or "Lincoln" as persons to be hated?
  • How do you figure Barack Obama "chose his name"? His parents gave it to him. It is identical to his father's name, a practice also followed by millions whose heritage is Anglo.
Many of your comments are good and on point, but this one is bigoted and diminishes only yourself.

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Representation

Postby Uji » 2010 Mar 16 18:20

Many of your comments are good and on point, but this one is bigoted and diminishes only yourself.

This so aptly describes the rhetoric of so many these days one begins to wonders if bigotry is not simply the root of all of it. No matter what else the topic, it eventually comes down to that -- he ain't one of us, he's one of them. What species of "us" is this, and who would want to count themselves a member?

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Representation

Postby Sam » 2010 Mar 17 07:20

Well folks I haven't been here for awhile, but after reading the following figured I had to make a few of my own comments. I looked up the term bigot and briefly it says that a "bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

I understand the concept that our dear old Pres. didn't choose his name. Why not question why the comment was made, go a little deeper instead of immediately labeling a person a bigot? Some say you can't understand where all the conservatives etc have gone. Well I sure do understand why they leave.

As usual some of you folks, while giving lip service to some of the messages, were sure quick to pounce on the statement which you considered bigot. It seems to me that we all are bigots in one way or another. Many toward the conservative right, tea party people, the religious fanatics, etc. all those who don't fit into your box you folks have here on this forum. Tolerant you ain't. Just a observation
:curse:
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1567
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Representation

Postby Coondog » 2010 Mar 17 12:15

I have all the tolerance in the World for conservative points of view......when those points of view don't evolve from some malicious lie. I can even tolerate a little bigotry when it comes to people who don't even know me, yet want to kill me anyway.

In times gone by, we may have had legitimate debate over whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, or vice versa. I may read my Bible today and conclude that the Sun does indeed revolve around the Earth, then formulate my debate accordingly. This does not make my position an opinion. It makes my position demonstratably and irrefutably false.

Perhaps we do adopt our beliefs from a tendency to embrace those ideologies which reenforce preconcieved notions of reality based on the totality of our individual inclinations or life experiences. Recognition and understanding of this particular character trait in the populace is the basis for what will likely be forever defined as Rovian political strategy.

Bigotry is just an expression of fear. Fear, in all it's manifestations, is the driving force behind manipulation of debate formulated from beliefs based on disinformation, distortion or outright delusion. There is an unveiled, coordinated and ongoing effort to manipulate the populace by playing on the natural fears of economic uncertainty, personal insecurity and an inherent resistance to changes from familiar circumstances of any sort, regardless of self interest.

It is clear from Silvereagle's abstract usage of the word "freedom" that his factually deficient debate is formulated on opinions provided by those who exemplify the current prevailing conservative methodology of manipulation via disinformation. In this regard, we should view the expression of "bigotry" as symptomatic of victimization by those who dissiminate the lies and distortions for their own self serving purposes.

It takes about 10 minutes of watching c-span to recognise that at least half or our elected representatives are willing to stand up on the floor of congress and regurgitate the most hideous, bald faced lies in the interest of advancing purely destructive political agendas. Those who hear and are persuaded thereby are nothing less than victims of the worst form of corruption......corruption of the mind and spirit of the people.

Ignorance and those who foster and feed on it are what we should be most concerned about........something to truly fear. Because, if all debate concerning our future as individuals and as a culture is to be predicated on falsehoods and distortions, then we are completely and irrevocably doomed.

:surrend: Coondog

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Representation

Postby fangz1956 » 2010 Mar 17 14:50

Those who hear and are persuaded thereby are nothing less than victims of the worst form of corruption......corruption of the mind and spirit of the people.

There are no victims.........only volunteers.

:wink:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Representation

Postby Uji » 2010 Mar 19 00:11

Sam wrote: Tolerant you ain't. Just a observation
:curse:

I can tolerate anything but intolerance.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Representation

Postby Wise One » 2010 Mar 19 18:40

Sam wrote:Why not question why the comment was made, go a little deeper instead of immediately labeling a person a bigot? Some say you can't understand where all the conservatives etc have gone. Well I sure do understand why they leave.

As usual some of you folks, while giving lip service to some of the messages, were sure quick to pounce on the statement which you considered bigot. It seems to me that we all are bigots in one way or another. Many toward the conservative right, tea party people, the religious fanatics, etc. all those who don't fit into your box you folks have here on this forum. Tolerant you ain't. Just a observation

Yours is a fair question, if at the same time somewhat puzzling. When a person (and I care absolutely nothing about which label he chooses to attach to himself) makes statements that are manifestly insulting and untrue, what is the appropriate response, really?

A restrained and respectful person behaves in such a manner so long as others reciprocate. But cannot even the noblest of us object when the insult is severe enough? Must a 'liberal' always "take" whatever is dished out by a 'conservative' regardless of its connection to objective reality? Or vice-versa? Must we accept hurtful insult out of fear that "'conservatives' can dish it out but they cannot take it, and will go scurrying home to mama if we stand up to them?"

The statement Juggler responded to
Silvereagle wrote:I am still in amazed that the American people would vote a man in as president such as Obama. A man who proudly carries the religious name of a man who was responsible for the death of thousands. A name that he choose.
is manifestly false and insulting. There is no reciprocal argument one can make in response, for it is disconnected from objective reality and indicates only raging prejudice. It seems to fit the classical definition of 'bigotry' perfectly, which you kindly provided.

But wait, I'm really trying to listen here. What do you think an appropriate response is?

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: Representation

Postby Uji » 2010 Mar 22 14:28

1. An assertion that is untrue or based upon demonstrably false assumptions is not just another opinion; it is a falsehood.

2. When proof of the validity of a claim is readily available, and yet that validity is not checked, it is not an innocent falsehood. It is -- in a practical sense -- an intentional falsehood.

3. An intentional falsehood is a lie.

:dontknow:

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Representation

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Nov 17 11:08

Here's an interesting exposition on why "No" is perhaps neither the correct nor practical way to end the corporate takeover of American democracy.

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Our government, then and now

Postby Cannoneer » 2016 Oct 30 12:19

We do not have the same government that we started out with.
At the time of raification of the constitution the States were sovereign.
By signing the constitution the States gave a specified and limited part of their sovereignty to the federal government in order for the federal government to untion properly for them and to unite them as a nation.
The portion of sovereignty given up isenumerated in Artical one of the constitution.
The federal government was divider into three branches in order balance of power with each branch having its ownspecified duties.
Very simply stated, congress is to make laws, the supreme court is to gudge the laws and determine wheather they are constitutional, and the president is to act in the capacity of executive.
As things now appear to me, that balance of power no longer exists.
The supreme court now makes laws de facto by theirdecisions.
The president now makes laws by decree.And congress does nothing about either even though it has the power to stop theese malfunctions.
The president and thee congress currently disregard the sovereignty of the States and the supreme court backs them up.
As in the case of the State of Arizona wanting to defend its border with Mexico and the federal government denying Arizona's right to do so.
I thik its time to make some changes and time to go back to agovernment as described in the constitution.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Wise One » 2016 Oct 30 14:03

Cannoneer wrote:We do not have the same government that we started out with. BS
At the time of raification of the constitution the States were sovereign. Still are, except in those matters they agreed to cede to the federal government.
By signing the constitution the States gave a specified and limited part of their sovereignty to the federal government in order for the federal government to untion properly for them and to unite them as a nation.
The portion of sovereignty given up is enumerated in Artical one of the constitution.
The federal government was divider into three branches in order balance of power with each branch having its own specified duties.
Very simply stated, congress is to make laws, the supreme court is to gudge the laws and determine wheather they are constitutional, and the president is to act in the capacity of executive.
As things now appear to me, that balance of power no longer exists.BS, all the above still hold.
The supreme court now makes laws de facto by their decisions. BS. SCOTUS resolves disputes over the meaning and Constitutionality of laws. It does NOT make law.
The president now makes laws by decree.BS. You do not know how the government works. The President cannot "make law."
And congress does nothing about either even though it has the power to stop theese malfunctions.BS. Congress does what it votes to do. Sometimes your point of view loses the vote.
The president and thee congress currently disregard the sovereignty of the States and the supreme court backs them up.BS. You don't understand the law.
As in the case of the State of Arizona wanting to defend its border with Mexico and the federal government denying Arizona's right to do so. BS. Control over immigration is specifically ceded to the federal government by the Constitution.
I thik its time to make some changes and time to go back to a government as described in the constitution. BS. There is ample room to make changes in the US, but we are doing pretty well in adhering to the Constitution, with very few exceptions.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Cannoneer » 2016 Oct 30 15:28

Besides Artical one, what sovereign rights have the states ceded?
Your saying BS does not make it so, the balance of power is not the same as it was.
The supreme court decisions often do become law without the blessing of congress.
If you don't think presidential decrees are law, try breaking one and find out.
Again, congress has the power to stop these things and does nothing about them.
The issue was Arizona defending its borders, not immigration which is the spin the government put on it.
True the federal government is in charge of enforcing immigration laws, however at the moment they do not fully enforce those laws.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3210
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

BS?

Postby Crux » 2016 Oct 30 17:36

wiseone, stick to stars, human or astral

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Cannoneer » 2016 Oct 30 19:05

Thank you Crux, I agree with you.

Back to the subject wiseone, The president is ignoring his oath of office by not protecting out borders from foriegn nationals making illigal intry.

Which he did when he opposed Arizona's effort to defend its borders.

And the supreme court has backed the idea that there is a seperation of church and state

allthough there is no such seperation in the constitution.

It only states that the federal government cannot establish a religion.

Unless Hillary loses Obama will go down as our worst president. Right behind Jimmy Carter.

Of corse if Hillary wins Oboma will go to second worst and Jimmy Carter to third.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Wise One » 2016 Oct 31 10:38

Cannoneer wrote:... what sovereign rights have the states ceded?

Omigod, your ignorance of the Constitution is surpassed only by that shrill crowd of ulta-right wing Republican "Conservative Constitutionalists" who are neither conservative nor respectful of the Constitution. This is a marvelous document, a shining example of genius, and I respect it highly. I was lucky enough to have an intensive college course in the Constitution and therefore know it better than many, but you should at least read the thing before spouting off nonsense about what it contains.

Here's a short list of powers ceded by the States to the Federal Government by the Constitution:
  • Establishment of a federal government, with Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches checking each others' powers. Powers to
  • tax, raise revenues, levy duties, imposts and excises, and to borrow money.
  • regulate commerce among the states.
  • provide for the defense of the United States, constitute armed forces, declare war.
  • establish post offices and roads.
  • coin money, regulate its value, fix standards of weights and measures.
  • promote science and useful arts and secure for limited times exclusive rights for innovators (patents, trademarks, copyrights.)
  • constitute and operate courts below the Supreme Court
  • control foreign policy, treaties, immigration
  • require all states to honor the lawful acts of every other state
  • guarantee freedom of religion, press, demonstrations, petitions
  • prohibited slavery, voter suppression, racial and religious discrimination by the states
  • and more.
:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Wise One » 2016 Oct 31 10:52

Cannoneer wrote:And the supreme court has backed the idea that there is a seperation of church and state allthough there is no such seperation in the constitution. It only states that the federal government cannot establish a religion.

Wrong. Read the damn thing, please. Here's what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key here is "respecting an establishment of religion" which has been interpreted by SCOTUS for centuries as meaning "pertaining to" religion. It does not merely bar establishing a state religion, it also bars any preference or suppression of religion by government in government spaces.

Thus, erecting Christian or Muslim symbols above the door to the Courthouse would be unconstitutional, as would starting each public school day with a Muslim prayer or the prayer of any religion.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Our government, then and now

Postby Cannoneer » 2016 Oct 31 22:19

what a pompus ass.
Your first post dealing with what the constitution says is in perfect agreement with what I wrote.

That is the portion of sovereignty given up to the federal government in order for the federal government to have the necessary tools to function.

I take issue with your interpreation of the amendment.

It means congress cannot make a law establishing a religion or interfering with the free practice of religion.

This was put in the constitution because the founding fathers did not want us to go the way of Europe,but it only applies to the federal government. Not to the several states.

So far you have not contradicted me, only went into more detail.

Are you going to address the issue of Arizona?