If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

reply to post by endisnighe

I guess I'm confused. I wasn't aware there was a conservative movement sweeping the country. Last time I checked there was a Democratic President elected just over a year ago, and two democratically controlled Chambers of Congress one with a 60 vote supermajority.
I might comment on some of your other points, but I'm not sure it is worth it as your initial premise is so wrong the rest of your points are just pie in the sky bloviation.

reply to post by kenochs


Thanks for your outright venomous reply.

It shows you are the standard of your position.

An elitist intellectual giant I bet?

edit to add quote-

I guess I'm confused. I wasn't aware there was a conservative movement sweeping the country. Last time I checked there was a Democratic President elected just over a year ago, and two democratically controlled Chambers of Congress one with a 60 vote supermajority. I might comment on some of your other points, but I'm not sure it is worth it as your initial premise is so wrong the rest of your points are just pie in the sky bloviation.

What, did not think I knew what bloviation means? Like I said, elitist intellectual giant!

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

I certainly didn't mean it as venomous, and it doesn't read as venom to me. Perhaps you're a bit defensive.

Perhaps you dream of a conservative movement sweeping the country as opposed to the ham-fisted attempts by Glenn Beck et. al. to create one, and are a bit frustrated by your lack of results.

Perhaps you dream of an America untroubled by the constant give and take, and stultifying push, pull and compromise that are the hallmarks of a democratic system. I certainly see your hopes for such a country enshrined in your post. But actually what you are proposing sounds like no place I'd like to live. I read a lot of words like 'compulsory' and 'mandatory; in your posts, and though you have since backed off a bit, you're whole set of rules smacks of authoritarianism, even (dare I say it) Fascism.

A lot of your ideas seem so very comfortable in the realm of your head... Term limits for instance... great idea, but oops unconstitutional.... How about outlawing lobbying... great idea, oops unconstitutional again. See, things get a bit tougher when you really have to deal with the actual constitution. And then there are little things like compulsory gun ownership? Not even remotely constitutional. What if I can't afford a gun? Will I go to jail if I don't have one? Mandatory military enlistment if you don't graduate from High School, are you crazy? 1.3 million americans drop out of high school every year... there aren't that many people serving in the entire u.s. military... where in the name of Heaven to do you think you're going to get the money to pay for (at a minimum 4 year enlistment) a 52-million person military. You're already cutting federal revenue significantly by imposing a flat tax.

I could go on and I might but your whole post doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test.

Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by endisnighe

 

A And then there are little things like compulsory gun ownership? Not even remotely constitutional. What if I can't afford a gun? Will I go to jail if I don't have one? Mandatory military enlistment if you don't graduate from High School, are you crazy? 1.3 million americans drop out of high school every year... there aren't that many people serving in the entire u.s. military... where in the name of Heaven to do you think you're going to get the money to pay for (at a minimum 4 year enlistment) a 52-million person military. You're already cutting federal revenue significantly by imposing a flat tax.

Alright, you are putting on me other people's posts. I never said mandatory anything except voting. All the other items you mention were someone else's comments but thanks for coming and posting fallacy and attacks.

If you actually want to talk civilly we still can.

I usually give a 2 post minimum for off topic and the such. I initially did not even respond but you seem kind of fun. So give it another whirl.

My apologies for ascribing ideas to you that weren't yours.
It is interesting the ideas that popped up though yes?
In any case, I can't comment on everything you said, but here are a few thoughts.

One large thought, last time I checked the constitution was still the law of the land, though it seems you don't necessarily agree with how it's been interpreted.

On banks, I don't want Congress in charge of our banking system, I want Congress regulating our banking system. Almost all of our nations economic troubles can be traced back to a lack of regulatory oversight stemming from the repeal of the glass-steagall act.

Can you give me an idea of what Federal Agencies are null and void in a constitutional government? I can't really comment unless you get specific.

The Illegal immigration issue is such a right-wing canard. Low wage U.S. workers are the people responsible for keeping almost all of our produce on sale for reasonable prices. Also, these migrant jobs don't have any significant impact on the American work force, you just don't want Mexicans here.

Your whole globalization issue thing is a great way to bankrupt the nation, good luck with that.

What energy profits go to the Fed?

Who decides which secrets are important to national security? Who decides? This one's just silly.

So only people can lobby on behalf of organizations? LIke the AMA that's only people, AARP? Only people but one of the most successfull lobbies on the hill, API American petroleum institute, just people lobbying on behalf of oil workers everywhere. You have a basic misunderstanding of lobbying and how it works.

Term limits like I said earlier unconstitutional.

I don't get all the fuss about the original 13th Amendment every electied official pledges himself to the constitution on taking office... and do you really want to throw out the one that's in there now?

So you want to remove all regulation from business and corporations? Are you crazy, we'd all be dead of e-coli within the year.

Your laws stuff is just silly, not to mention unnecessary.

Flat taxes don't work, they just don't.

I could go on, but I kinda feel like I'm talking to a creationist, because I know that despite all evidence to the contrary you are going to believe what you believe. I'm no elitist intellectual giant, I'm a realist, and your weird conservative fantasy while funny in an 'onion' kinda way doesn't really deserve any real discussion because it actually has no merit.

The U.S. Constitution is a powerful and vital document. The U.S. Federal government has a vital regulatory and financial role, as do most of its departments.

But finally, your aversion to globalization suggests you are not really interested in a true free-market system because your are willing to remove regulations but then hamstring companies that want to compete in a global marketplace. It's totally counterintuitive.

reply to post by kenochs


Do you really think you are that smart? You do know any member can look at any other members posts? I do mean all of them.

You think I do not see your snide comments in everything you just posted?

What is your IQ, just north of Hillary? Or just south of Joe?

Next time be a little less obvious. Do not even bother commenting again. I will not ignore you, I like to keep my eyes on trolls and provocateurs. How many accounts do you have? Are you behind a proxy?

For now on do not even comment to me. I will not respond.

But finally, your aversion to globalization suggests you are not really interested in a true free-market system because your are willing to remove regulations but then hamstring companies that want to compete in a global marketplace. It's totally counterintuitive.

I'll just keep this quote for posterity, it seems awfully familiar.


[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

This has been an interesting thread, and the discussion and suggestions have been incredible. It took me a while to get through it all. I like a lot of the ideas put forth, and some not so much. There are a few things that I have not seen discussed that I would like to bring up as some of them have been key aspects of division for people in the nation.

First, issues relating to human life such as abortion, cloning and genetic engineering. While not even a consideration when the first constitution was written, science and technology have brought it to the forefront. My suggestion on these issues, is recognize individual responsibility and human life at all levels. This would mean no abortions with the exception of rape and incest.

Prohibit human cloning, but not organ cloning. Prohibit genetic customization and enhancements, only allowing alterations only for disease removal.

On the issue of marriage, gay or otherwise: Marriage is historically a personal and religious issue, and the government should not be involved. The only reason they seem to get involved is because of the tax issues or mutual property related to two people being together. Therefore, I think that if it will only be a tax issue, should any tax issue remain under the proposed suggestions, the government would recognize any two adults choosing to be together for financial or property reasons, as existing in a partnership. This would allow any persons, gay, straight, polygamist, related or otherwise to be together in whichever personal or religious practice they prescribe, for mutual fiscal and property benefits.

Citizenship has not been discussed much here and I think that is an important area. As of now, many people come here illegally or legally and have children here. These resulting anchor babies only cause more difficulty in the immigration/illegal debate. I propose the following: To be a citizen of the USA, one must be born to two citizens, be naturalized, or if born to only one citizen, that citizen must claim citizenship for their child before the child reaches 18. Prohibit dual citizenship for anyone 18 or older. This would prevent anchor babies, foreign vacationers from timing their trips so they have an American citizen child, and conflicting associations with foreign nations.

I agree with term limits for all elected officials. Likewise, prohibiting lifetime perks and such should also not be allowed. ALL FEDERAL employees should only be offered(via employer) the same benefits. If TRICARE and the VA is good enough for servicemen, its good enough for elected officials and federal employees. Should they not opt in at work they can find private insurance elsewhere. And no more pensions after one term. They can put into a retirement like everyone else.

Regarding pay, Congressmen and Senators pay will be based off of a determined national average income. It will be adjusted in accordance to the national average income every two years. A travel allowance will be provided for each session or special sessions and would be calculated from members home to D.C. taking into account the travelers mode of transportation, no first class, no 5 star spa resports, no driver, no limo. I am not sure on any housing issue. I don't know if its better to have some sort of congressional dormatory built or allow a small stipend to cover the cost of housing during the session. I'm leaning towards a facility or multiple facilities.

Next, a requirement for the office of President. As it is the role of the POTUS to serve as Commander-in-Chief, they they should be required to have military experience, if for some reason they do not, the the role of CinC will be fulfilled by the Commander of the Joint Chiefs, allowed only defensive control until a declaration of war by congress. This idea would need to be more thought out, but I think the premise is sound.

I think the ideas on removing most of the bases around the world is a good one. I think we need bases outside of the US, but where and how many needs to change. If we went to war with a nation and won, it should have been unconditionally so we get to keep a base or bases there. If a nation wants us there to ensure security or as part of an alliance, they either cover the cost or do not charge us for the privilege. Between the territory we have, nations we have defeated, and alliances we have with nations, there are plenty of forward positions for us.

The presidency has utilized the military in aggression in too many cases, and almost all without a declaration of war. In order to aid an ally by or engaging in offensive action, a declaration of war should be required. Its all political now and congress gets to deny responsibility simply by funding military aggression decided by the President. If the cause if just, congress should be willing to stand up and say so. There can be a clause akin to the War Powers Resolution but more limiting for emergency situations. Perhaps limiting the numbers and duration, and prohibiting extensions.


Finally, the standing army as it is too easily abused. Since we are a union of 50 sovereign States, each should have its own “militia”, as initially intended. A federal requirement for the states to maintain a certain level of full time (National Guard) and part time/stand-by (militia) would be included.

The Federal Government would be responsible for financial appropriations of the defense budget as needed to ensure as a whole we have the resources to defend our nation. The primary role for a national level of military would be to centralize and standardize training for the branches of military of all the states, as well as R&D and acquisitions. The federal level would also have control of overseas bases and forces, the Navy as a whole (not the Marine Corps as a whole though,) ICBMs, nuclear weapons, space assets and one continental based Division, Group or whatnot for use in emergencies internally or in accordance with the newer War Powers Resolution. For territorial defense or a declaration of war, all states could be activated up to 75% of a states force, more with governor approval, and coordinated from a central, federal command.

reply to post by Wolf321


Okay, I was wondering when someone was going to bring that one into the conversation...........First, I am going to tell you my stand on the issue. I do not believe in abortion for anything but incest, rape, or the safety of the mother. That being said, I am a Christian and I believe it is absolutely wrong, that being said, one cannot legislate morality.

I hate to say it, but one cannot force this issue. Except for late term abortions, I believe the government should have no say in that. I do agree with your position. It should be left to the states. Like I said, late term-third trimester I can agree with.

Organ cloning I can agree with, as long as no fetal tissue is used.

Agreed with the gay union, the only thing I would do about this though is require to be called a union in the legislative language.

Your points are relevant to the pay situation and housing allowances for the government officials. I had left that out but it is stipulated in my clause of setting up the clause for control of the government criminals. I did not specify components like you mentioned but agree wholeheartedly.

As for the military I believe most of America feels the same way you and I feel.

I had broken my list down better a few pages back. I do not know if you had seen that.

Thank you for your open and honest evaluation of my thread.

Yes, some people just cannot discuss things in regard to the political. I feel they are influenced too much by the vitriol created by our government.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by endisnigheone cannot legislate morality.

True, but there needs to be a consensus on what we, humanity, can accept. At the heart of my position is responsibility. As it stands, abortion is all about relinquishing responsibility for ones action. It is understood by everyone, that anytime sex occurs between a male and female, despite pills or prophylactics, a chance of pregnancy exists. If it happens you have to accept that. Humanity exists beyond state lines.

I did forget to include in cases where the mothers life was in jeopardy.

I had a thread like this not long after I had joined ATS entitled America 2.0 - the next Constitution, but you got much better feedback than I did. I think the timing has helped.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Wolf321]

reply to post by Wolf321


One thing a person brought up in another thread regarding abortions may just push people to realize the problem with the abortion issue.

His supposition was this. Being a man, the father is given no rights to accept or deny support for his child. Now the woman is given the choice to abort the baby or not.

Now his supposition makes the support payments a legal issue due to the fact that a man has less rights than the woman. That in our laws gives the fair under the eyes of the law stipulation a case.

Where he was pushing that he does not have the same rights as a woman.

His reasoning may have been immoral but could be a way to show the absolute problems with abortions in this day and age.

Like I said, I do agree with you in this.

reply to post by endisnighe

And here we go, you can't discuss my issues with your ideas like an adult so you flame me as being some provocateur or troll.
That's the easy way out buddy, you can't support your ideas, you can't take criticism so you take your ball and go home.
Next time, man up and defend your post.
I was just starting to have fun.

reply to post by Wolf321

A thoughtful post Wolf, but one thing gives me the heebie jeebies, taking military power away from the President, and putting it in the hands of the Joint Chiefs scares the living daylights out of me.
Used to be the President had to go to Congress to authorize the use of military force, seems those days are gone, so having the military in effect, in charge of deploying the military, yikes. I have great respect for our men and women in uniform, but allowing the military to dictate their own deployment seems to create a situation where the military is working for their own best interests and not (in some cases) the best interests of the nation.
I'm really uncomfortable with the whole state militia thing as well, generally a bad idea, a waste of state resources, better to consolidate, allow local law enforcement to do its job well you don't need state militias.






[edit on 5-1-2010 by kenochs]

Originally posted by kenochs
My apologies for ascribing ideas to you that weren't yours.
It is interesting the ideas that popped up though yes?
In any case, I can't comment on everything you said, but here are a few thoughts.

One large thought, last time I checked the constitution was still the law of the land, though it seems you don't necessarily agree with how it's been interpreted.

On banks, I don't want Congress in charge of our banking system, I want Congress regulating our banking system. Almost all of our nations economic troubles can be traced back to a lack of regulatory oversight stemming from the repeal of the glass-steagall act.

Can you give me an idea of what Federal Agencies are null and void in a constitutional government? I can't really comment unless you get specific.

The Illegal immigration issue is such a right-wing canard. Low wage U.S. workers are the people responsible for keeping almost all of our produce on sale for reasonable prices. Also, these migrant jobs don't have any significant impact on the American work force, you just don't want Mexicans here.

Your whole globalization issue thing is a great way to bankrupt the nation, good luck with that.

What energy profits go to the Fed?

Who decides which secrets are important to national security? Who decides? This one's just silly.

So only people can lobby on behalf of organizations? LIke the AMA that's only people, AARP? Only people but one of the most successfull lobbies on the hill, API American petroleum institute, just people lobbying on behalf of oil workers everywhere. You have a basic misunderstanding of lobbying and how it works.

Term limits like I said earlier unconstitutional.

I don't get all the fuss about the original 13th Amendment every electied official pledges himself to the constitution on taking office... and do you really want to throw out the one that's in there now?

So you want to remove all regulation from business and corporations? Are you crazy, we'd all be dead of e-coli within the year.

Your laws stuff is just silly, not to mention unnecessary.

Flat taxes don't work, they just don't.

I could go on, but I kinda feel like I'm talking to a creationist, because I know that despite all evidence to the contrary you are going to believe what you believe.
I'm no elitist intellectual giant, I'm a realist, and your weird conservative fantasy while funny in an 'onion' kinda way doesn't really deserve any real discussion because it actually has no merit.

The U.S. Constitution is a powerful and vital document. The U.S. Federal government has a vital regulatory and financial role, as do most of its departments.

But finally, your aversion to globalization suggests you are not really interested in a true free-market system because your are willing to remove regulations but then hamstring companies that want to compete in a global marketplace. It's totally counterintuitive.

If you want to discuss things, let's first look at your vitriol and blatant condescension. Explain to me why everything that I have highlighted, should not be taken as attacks and condescension. Otherwise stay off the thread.

This technique is standard CoIntelPro.

Do you really believe people debate this way?

Typical!

edit it seems some of the tags didn't work

[edit on 1/5/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe

End,
talk about typical disinfo tactics, attack the messenger not the message. I don't buy for a minute that you actually are comfortable labeling my pretty bland criticisms of your ideas as 'vitriol' but for your sake I'll lay them out here.

"The Illegal immigration issue is such a right-wing canard."
Well it is, it's a common tactic of xenophobes to suggest that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs and livelihoods away from us when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that is actually happening.

"Your whole globalization issue thing is a great way to bankrupt the nation, good luck with that."
Again, it is, suggesting that companies can't have satellite offices, or hire overseas instantly takes away a significant and valuable workforce from U.S. companies. Add to that your whole tariff's thing and you create an environment where u.s. business can't compete in a global marketplace. You're putting a huge regulatory roadblock in the way of a free market, the endgame: U.S. business loses.

"You have a basic misunderstanding of lobbying and how it works." That's the only conclusion I can draw based on your ideas. Fact is, a coalition of oil companies are fighting cap and trade, it's not just Exxon walking up to the hill. It's AARP, AMA, small business lobbies, etc. etc.

"Your laws stuff is just silly, not to mention unnecessary." Granted my opinion but you propose to end all of our legislative woes by forcing our lawmakers to write shorter bills in easy to read language? That just ignores the problem. Posting laws 7 days in advance, that's usually never a problem, and it only ever became a real issue during the Health Care debate and during the first stimulus debate during the Bush Administration, in any case any law that comes our of reconciliation will be posted well in advance of the president' signature.

I just don't get it, the problem I now have with you is that you're the one attacking me. Cointelpro really? That's your response? That I'm some pro-government troll out to sabotage you? A bit paranoid don't you think.

Also, you haven't really defended all of your ideas, you've resorted to attacking me as opposed to answering any of my reasonable questions about your ideas. Do YOU really think this is how people debate?

Sorry, maybe I am a little gun shy when it comes to people here at ATS.

Maybe, read too much into your initial responses.

I do feel people tend to ridicule more often than not things they do not agree with instead of debating the why behind their disagreement.

Your last response may prove your sincerity, we shall see.

Let us start over.

Are you responding to the OP or have you looked at my adjusted points on a page just before this one?

And I will debate anyone that point out my illogical and mistaken observations.

I will not, debate someone that denigrates my views by using fallacious attacks like that is just silly and so right wing canard.

SO, BEGIN AGAIN?

reply to post by endisnighe


Sure no problem.

The canard thing wasn't personal, it's my comment on what I think is a overused and in my opinion fallacious argument about illegal immigrants and their impact on the U.S. workforce. I think the O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs anti immigration rants are nationalistic and xenophobic (again not personal this is a broad commentary on the line of argument).

Silly? You got me there, I apologize. But to the point itself: forcing lawmakers to pigeonhole their laws, especially ones as far reaching as a stimulus bill, a federal budget, health care legislation, not to mention defense appropriations, into an arbitrary 50 page limitation seems undoable and unreasonable.

Finally, if I may, we may be coming at it from different viewpoints entirely. You, I believe see no real use for a broad Federal Government (not to put words in your mouth, it's just a generalization based on the tenor of your post), you are a classic conservative. I, think (my opinion) that federal government can have a strong positive impact on the well being of it's citizens, I guess I am a classic liberal (though I imagine you hate labels as much as I do). So, with our basic philosophical differences this entire discussion might be a simple recitation of basic political philosophies, which is fine.

In your world the FG is so minimized it may in fact be possible to post all laws with a 50 page limit. I get that, but coming from my view, and with the FG we have now it would simply be an unreasonable expectation, (whether it's a good idea or not).

But in regards to my other thoughts, I think you can go back and take a look at my criticisms of your initial post, and comment. I will take a look at your later update and get back to you.

How's that?






[edit on 5-1-2010 by kenochs]

In your regards to labeling. A response of mine from another thread.

Well, I am not classically trained in the nuances of political and socio-economic descriptions. Mainly what I have learned is through extensive reading of fiction, not non-fiction. I have only recently began investigating the non-fiction. Labels are transitory in their nature. That is why I have never really called myself anything but conservative. Now their are all types of different things that you bring up such as Social, Cultural, Religious, and Fiscal. Add to that political. Come to think of it, I would probably label myself the wrong thing. I believe what I believe. Actually some very liberal or progressive people here think I have a lot of similarities to the way they think things should be. Let me give it a try. Politically conservative with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, Fiscally Conservative with Austrian economic leanings, and Religiously Conservative and liberal. I feel these labels are indicative to the problems in our countries structure and system. I believe that gays should be allowed to join as a union, just not write the legislation as marriage, give it every right that a normal couple has just reserve the name marriage for a man and women. Now for abortion, I do not believe in it except for rape, mother's health or incest. Now I do not believe their should be legislation against it, except for maybe late term abortion. I feel you cannot and should not try to legislate morals of any kind. Any way, you see what I mean. Labels put me in a box, I do not like to be put in a box.

reply to post by endisnighe

Never cared for them much myself.

Originally posted by kenochs
My apologies for ascribing ideas to you that weren't yours.
It is interesting the ideas that popped up though yes?
In any case, I can't comment on everything you said, but here are a few thoughts.

One large thought, last time I checked the constitution was still the law of the land, though it seems you don't necessarily agree with how it's been interpreted.

Interpretation and implementation can be two different things. I could go into the feeling I have on corporate laws, suffice it to say that I abhor American Citizens becoming corporate entities. That is all I will go into their. The initial supposition of the Constitution was to limit government so that people could remain free to make their own choices on EVERYTHING. The only thing illegal was to cause harm to another or to restrict or stop another's rights. You can agree this is no longer relevant with +600,000 corporate statutes?

On banks, I don't want Congress in charge of our banking system, I want Congress regulating our banking system. Almost all of our nations economic troubles can be traced back to a lack of regulatory oversight stemming from the repeal of the glass-steagall act.

The banking system I am assuming you and I probably see eye to eye. Their are many items to consider besides the removal of glass-steagall. The forcing of banks to give loans is one. The manipulation of fannie and freddie by the financial services committee another. The manipulation of the value of the dollar by the Fed to keep the bubbles going another. We could go into thousands of examples of the problems of a monetary system based on nothing but fiat money that is controlled by the IMF and other international private corporations but I will leave you with a Rockefellor paraphrase "I care not who writes the law if I control the money".

Can you give me an idea of what Federal Agencies are null and void in a constitutional government? I can't really comment unless you get specific.

ATF. Alcohol Tobacco Firearms all three things that are legal and should not in anyway be regulated. Department of Ag. Paying huge corporations to keep land fallow to manipulate the prices of commodities. Dept of Ed. States pay for the schools but the Fed gov decides curriculums and forces their desires onto the system. Why is the separation of church and state such a big issue? Because the gov is involved in everything which hence requires that no religion be involved in any school. Give the parents a voucher and let them decide what school to send their children. I could go on, you can see my point here I think.

The Illegal immigration issue is such a right-wing canard. Low wage U.S. workers are the people responsible for keeping almost all of our produce on sale for reasonable prices. Also, these migrant jobs don't have any significant impact on the American work force, you just don't want Mexicans here.

Their is more of a problem than just the labor issue and you know it. Healt care has been ravaged by the use of required medical benefits by the illegals. Entire cities are forced to shutdown hospitals because they can no longer sustain the free services required of them. Gangs and illegal activity. The breaking of our law of being here in the first place. Why do I need a passport to travel to another country if you feel the way you do? Immigration over the last 30 years has brought us to our knees by this problem. Immigration dept gives us a number of appx 40-50 million in that time frame. I would say closer to 80 million. If you think illegals do not take jobs you are sorrowfully mistaken. Besides that they keep the wages low in numerous fields. I am no longer in Fresno but the construction field has been decimated by low wages and that cannot be denied.

Your whole globalization issue thing is a great way to bankrupt the nation, good luck with that.

Globalization is a help to our economy? This is where you totally lost me on you logic. How in the past 30 years has globalization helped the US? I am talking about a complete leveling of the playing field or nothing at all. That is why I say either remove the regulations and taxation on our companies here or institute tariffs to equalize the playing field.

What energy profits go to the Fed?

You do know what oil lease are do you not? Also, do you know the gov makes money in more ways than just taxes do you not? If not google CAFR, now these reports are hard to get. Our government does not want us to know their REAL numbers.

Who decides which secrets are important to national security? Who decides? This one's just silly.

Secrets are the way our gov controls everything. Denying FOIR. Backroom deals. Patents that are declared National Security. Money being lost in the TRILLIONS-remember the day before 9/11 and Cheney? How about the fiasco on the 9/11 investigation. Why is any investigation into corruption just fluff to you? Yeah, secrets are a good thing and you mock me?

So only people can lobby on behalf of organizations? LIke the AMA that's only people, AARP? Only people but one of the most successfull lobbies on the hill, API American petroleum institute, just people lobbying on behalf of oil workers everywhere. You have a basic misunderstanding of lobbying and how it works.

Lobbying by people is fine. Lobbying by Corporations is not legal unless you think Corporations are people, you must be kidding me on this issue? PAC's, infinite slush funds etc are a detriment to our free society and are just another name for BRIBERY!

Term limits like I said earlier unconstitutional.

That is what Amendments are for are they not? Why do you think none of these things have ever been addressed by our government? Wouldn't you love to give yourself raises? Salaries are just the tip of the iceburg. How about requiring that no one in government office to EVER go to work for a company that they have helped pass legislation on? How about no one in office can decide which product is safe to put on the market-apartame?

I don't get all the fuss about the original 13th Amendment every electied official pledges himself to the constitution on taking office... and do you really want to throw out the one that's in there now?

You do not get that someone in our government should have no loyalties beyond the people? You are kidding me right? Why is the government pervaded by lawyers? You do know why don't you?

So you want to remove all regulation from business and corporations? Are you crazy, we'd all be dead of e-coli within the year.

Your response here is avoidance to what I have suggested. Like I said, look at the last draft on the previous page.

Your laws stuff is just silly, not to mention unnecessary.

Yeah, my law stuff is silly! Every law should have in it a disclosure of where in the Constitution it derives its power. In standard common law verbiage. The people should be allowed to see it before it is voted on. etc etc etc Completely silly!

Flat taxes don't work, they just don't.

Consumption tax setup as a Flat Sale tax is the ONLY fair and equitable way to tax EVERYONE FAIRLY. How do you know that it won't work, because the largest spenders will be taxed the most? Ridiculous argument on your part. Also, how much do you pay in taxes? I mean ALL taxes. Permits, licensing, fees, income, property, death, usury, phone, tv, etc etc etc. All of these different taxes need to be abolshed and one flat sales tax on everything is the ONLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE SYSTEM OF TAXATION!

I could go on, but I kinda feel like I'm talking to a creationist, because I know that despite all evidence to the contrary you are going to believe what you believe. I'm no elitist intellectual giant, I'm a realist, and your weird conservative fantasy while funny in an 'onion' kinda way doesn't really deserve any real discussion because it actually has no merit.

The U.S. Constitution is a powerful and vital document. The U.S. Federal government has a vital regulatory and financial role, as do most of its departments.

But finally, your aversion to globalization suggests you are not really interested in a true free-market system because your are willing to remove regulations but then hamstring companies that want to compete in a global marketplace. It's totally counterintuitive.


All of my response in yellow

I do not know why some tags work and other do not! Maybe I should talk to a mod!

[edit on 1/5/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by Wolf321

 

A thoughtful post Wolf, but one thing gives me the heebie jeebies, taking military power away from the President, and putting it in the hands of the Joint Chiefs scares the living daylights out of me.
Used to be the President had to go to Congress to authorize the use of military force, seems those days are gone, so having the military in effect, in charge of deploying the military, yikes.

The idea of a politician, with no idea what kind of sacrifice servicemen go through in all the aspects of service, and using them as political playthings, THAT gives me the heebie jeebies.

Following my suggestion, the military would only be activated in a contingency overseas via a congressional declaration of war. Thats a legislative decision. A Joint Chiefs commander, acting as CinC would only be doing the same as they are now, but be the final authority on strategy and tactics. If for some reason, there runs a risk of gross abuse, the Joint Chiefs still operate under the DOD of which the Secretary is appointed by the President.

allow local law enforcement to do its job well you don't need state militias.

You and I seems to have a different concept of what I was terming militias. They wouldn't be state law enforcement. They would operate the same as any military unit in the US operates now, only in peace time, under the command of the state governor, with all basic training and standardization done through the national military. Realigning them under state militias would only limit abuse by politicians.



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Wolf321]