This is ****ing fantastic!

[Bear44]

Rationalizing to the extreme. So a state can decide that all of the Bill of Rights are null and void within their borders? And if that's what the people want the governor can sign off on that and remain in the Union?
Oh please! It has already been determined that an AWB is not unconstitutional or the 1994 one would have never stood up. Agree with that or not as you want. I happen to disagree with it, but it does not make the rest of the Bill of Rights null and void.

I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar but I think your dislike or hatred for Obama has closed your eyes to the exceptional elitist that Romney is.
In one sentence you accuse me of letting a personal dislike cloud my judgement and then you call Romney an "exceptional elitist". LOL!

Watch out brother; power is power no matter what side of the aisle you were taught to sit on.
So your issue is not about what a person would do, it's that you have problems with anyone that has power enough to do it.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

And what exactly do you think Washington was trying to get across with this statement? Do you really think he was promoting governmentless anarchy?

 

[strider12]

Oh please! It has already been determined that an AWB is not unconstitutional or the 1994 one would have never stood up. Agree with that or not as you want. I happen to disagree with it, but it does not make the rest of the Bill of Rights null and void.

I think you missed the point. By saying that his constituency can dictate un-Constitutional behavior you are excusing his actions

In one sentence you accuse me of letting a personal dislike cloud my judgement and then you call Romney an "exceptional elitist". LOL!

I believe by their actions all people that desire power reveal themselves to be elitists. Anybody that thinks they can dictate how somebosy else should live because that is what they believe is dangerous. For an example see what 51% of voters can do.


So your issue is not about what a person would do, it's that you have problems with anyone that power enough to do it.

As stated above I have a great distrust for those that seek a seat to tell others what to do.

And what exactly do you think Washington was trying to get across with this statement? Do you really think he was promoting governmentless anarchy?

Maybe Washington wasn't but what do you think Jefferson was saying when he said:

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

 

[Bear44]

Oh please! It has already been determined that an AWB is not unconstitutional or the 1994 one would have never stood up. Agree with that or not as you want. I happen to disagree with it, but it does not make the rest of the Bill of Rights null and void.

I think you missed the point. By saying that his constituency can dictate un-Constitutional behavior you are excusing his actions
You need to read my reply again.

In one sentence you accuse me of letting a personal dislike cloud my judgement and then you call Romney an "exceptional elitist". LOL!

I believe by their actions all people that desire power reveal themselves to be elitists. Anybody that thinks they can dictate how somebosy else should live because that is what they believe is dangerous. For an example see what 51% of voters can do.


So your issue is not about what a person would do, it's that you have problems with anyone that power enough to do it.

As stated above I have a great distrust for those that seek a seat to tell others what to do.



Maybe Washington wasn't but what do you think Jefferson was saying when he said:

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

So anyone that seeks power is by definition a tyrant in you opinion. Funny, weren't both Jefferson and Washington President? This would mean the people that you are quoting are the people they are warning us against. Or is it possible that you aren't quite understanding what they are saying? For instance; Washington is warning about letting government gain to much power and Jefferson saw a clear distinction between a tyrant and an American President. Power focused in specific individuals is unavoidable in government. Choice of who will have that power is what voting is all about. The Constitution is about limiting the use of that power. However, powerless leadership is worse than no leadership at all.

 

[strider12]

So anyone that seeks power is by definition a tyrant in you opinion. Funny, weren't both Jefferson and Washington President? This would mean the people that you are quoting are the people they are warning us against. Or is it possible that you aren't quite understanding what they are saying? For instance; Washington is warning about letting government gain to much power and Jefferson saw a clear distinction between a tyrant and an American President. Power focused in specific individuals is unavoidable in government. Choice of who will have that power is what voting is all about. The Constitution is about limiting the use of that power. However, powerless leadership is worse than no leadership at all.

From everything I've read about that era the heroes of independence pretty much were defaulted into those roles. Did they want them? Maybe, probable. But I know Jefferson later in life started to write about things that would mark him as an enemy of the state now.

I do understand what Washington is saying but the Jefferson quote is from later in life when he feared that the positions in government would start to model those of the monarchies in France and England. He could truly see off into the future.

And yes, powerless leadership is useless. The question is what should they have the power to rule on? According to the Constitution very little. Eisenhower is my favorite 20th century president because he focused on national defense and roads. IMO those those two issues and the coining of money and regulating it's worth (something that the government has farmed out) are the three things layed out in the Constitution.

I am of the belief that once the government goes even a little beyond that there is no use for it anymore. Now we have a monarchy that can be voted on. I blame us 100% for letting it happen.

If we have to disagree I hope we can do with civility. If I have not been civil please accept my apology.

 

[Bear44]

From everything I've read about that era the heroes of independence pretty much were defaulted into those roles. Did they want them? Maybe, probable. But I know Jefferson later in life started to write about things that would mark him as an enemy of the state now.

I do understand what Washington is saying but the Jefferson quote is from later in life when he feared that the positions in government would start to model those of the monarchies in France and England. He could truly see off into the future.

And yes, powerless leadership is useless. The question is what should they have the power to rule on? According to the Constitution very little. Eisenhower is my favorite 20th century president because he focused on national defense and roads. IMO those those two issues and the coining of money and regulating it's worth (something that the government has farmed out) are the three things layed out in the Constitution.

I am of the belief that once the government goes even a little beyond that there is no use for it anymore. Now we have a monarchy that can be voted on. I blame us 100% for letting it happen.

If we have to disagree I hope we can do with civility. If I have not been civil please accept my apology.

I don't think we are quite where you think we are as far as a monarchy, but I think the government has already gone WAY beyond what the Constitution says it can do. We agree on the important issues of what is wrong in our country now, but I think we disagree on what needs to be done about it. We will never be able to flip it back around instantly and as long as we keep voting in Liberal Democrats we are still headed in the wrong direction.

There is absolutely no need to apologize for anything. Debate, even if it gets heated, is a good thing and you have been completely civil in all your posts. Point, counter point is what it's all about, man.

 

[strider12]

I'm glad we're good.

 

[Bear44]

I'm glad we're good.

You know you steal my fire when you're all nice and everything. LOL!

 

[Thor827]

It's nice to see people disagree without all of the name calling.

 

[Bear44]

It's nice to see people disagree without all of the name calling.

That's the difference between mature debate and childish BS. Maybe strider and I should visit Congress and show them how it's done.

 

[strider12]

That's the difference between mature debate and childish BS. Maybe strider and I should visit Congress and show them how it's done.

I doubt I would be able to keep cool around those ****nuts.