# Stuff and Things > The Pub >  Rank the Statists

## Maximatic

This is the spectrum we're using.



This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.

From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.




@DonGlock26
@RMNIXON
 @Tay
 @liberal_hack
 @protectionist
 @KarlChilders
 @Ravi
 @Ghost
 @Beevee
 @ChoppedLiver
 @Old Navy
 @Jim Scott
 @gamewell45
 @momsapplepie
 @Katzndogz
 @CBHype
 @Rudy2D
 @Cat
 @Max Rockatansky
 @ManilaFolder
 @lostbeyond
 @Conservative Libertarian
 @Libhater
 @Archer
 @Hansel
 @Old Ridge Runner
 @pragmatic
 @Sentinel
 @Sheldonna
 @JustPassinThru
 @patrickt
 @Coolwalker
 @roadmaster
 @usfan
 @Anonymous
 @2cent
 @Calypso Jones
 @Mordent
 @Dos Equis
 @sparsely
 @countryboy
 @webrockk
 @michaelr @Trinnity
 @fyrenza
 @007
 @stjames1_53
 @Reverend_Hellh0und
 @wist43 
 @the_diplomat2.0
 @squidward
 @Invayne
 @Longshot
 @hoytmonger
 @Axiomatic 
@Network


Let me know if you don't like your spot.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),michaelr (04-09-2014),Roadmaster (04-08-2014),sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

We're not using your chart.

----------

Calypso Jones (04-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Hey, ma! I'm king of the Statists!!!!

The problem is, am I a communist or a fascist?...hmmmmm....tough one that!

Can I flip a coin?

----------


## Mordent

Interesting.

----------


## Maximatic

> Hey, ma! I'm king of the Statists!!!!
> 
> The problem is, am I a communist or a fascist?...hmmmmm....tough one that!
> 
> Can I flip a coin?


You're obviously a fascist, I mean, come on.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),wist43 (04-08-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> We're not using your chart.


lofnl

Get one you like better.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

*Your political compass* *Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49*

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

No offense @Axiomatic but, I could really care less about where I land on someone's list of statists. However, I do find it convenient that you put yourself on the bottom. :Tongue20:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Coolwalker (04-09-2014),DeadEye (04-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> No offense @Axiomatic but, I could really care less about where I land on someone's list of statists. However, I do find it convenient that you put yourself on the bottom.


Never let it be said that the Ax Man lacks a sense of humour....

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-08-2014)

----------


## Old Navy

I have no idea what this means....here I thought I was a Conservative...

----------

Coolwalker (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> No offense @Axiomatic but, I could really care less about where I land on someone's list of statists. However, I do find it convenient that you put yourself on the bottom.


What's the problem with me on the bottom? You don't dispute the claim the you prefer government to no government, do you? The only people I can imagine having a problem with me at the bottom are the other anti-statists.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I have no idea what this means....here I thought I was a Conservative...


The Ax Man gets to determine what the constitution means, so he gets to determine whether or not you are a conservative.

Didn't you know that?!?! :Angry20:

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-08-2014),Coolwalker (04-09-2014),Old Navy (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> I have no idea what this means....here I thought I was a Conservative...


Government lovers on top. Government haters on bottom.

----------


## Maximatic

> The Ax Man gets to determine what the constitution means, so he gets to determine whether or not you are a conservative.
> 
> Didn't you know that?!?!


It's not about the constitution. Quit playin.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> It's not about the constitution. Quit playin.


Quit masturbating with your keyboard.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-08-2014),Matt (04-08-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> *Your political compass*
> 
> *Economic Left/Right: 4.50
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49*


I couldn't make heads or tails out of that one. All the questions look like Karl Marx wrote them.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I LOVE the government...when it works the way it's supposed to, is lean, cheap and efficient, and operates under reasonable constraints.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-08-2014),JustPassinThru (04-08-2014),sotmfs (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Quit masturbating with your keyboard.


That's nasty. How the hell do you do it, anyway?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I couldn't make heads or tails out of that one. All the questions look like Karl Marx wrote them.


Yeah, I only trust quizzes that look like The Ax Man wrote them, they're the only accurate ones.

----------



----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I LOVE the government...when it works the way it's supposed to, is lean, cheap and efficient, and operates under reasonable constraints.


I agree except, even when such conditions are met, I don't love the government. I wouldn't necessarily hate it under those conditions either. However, I will always have some level if distrust.

----------

sotmfs (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> I LOVE the government...when it works the way it's supposed to, is lean, cheap and efficient, and operates under reasonable constraints.


What constraints? According to you, the government is allowed to do anything they can dream up until nine guys appointed by the government tell them to stop.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

Tell the truth, did this list come from the NSA?   :Tongue20:

----------

DeadEye (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> Yeah, I only trust quizzes that look like The Ax Man wrote them, they're the only accurate ones.


How did you beat out Tay and Liberal Hack?

Impressive.

----------

DeadEye (04-08-2014),fyrenza (04-08-2014)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> What's the problem with me on the bottom? You don't dispute the claim the you prefer government to no government, do you? The only people I can imagine having a problem with me at the bottom are the other anti-statists.


The rankings are obviously arbitrary, subjective, and the perspective of only one person.

----------

Jim Scott (06-17-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Tell the truth, did this list come from the NSA?


Sorry, man, truthiness is toward the bottom on this one. Do you feel you should be lower?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> How did you beat out Tay and Liberal Hack?
> 
> Impressive.


Oh, that was EASY: I refuted one too many of The Ax Man's rubbishy arguments.

THAT pretty much CROWNED me!

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> The rankings are obviously arbitrary, subjective, and the perspective of only one person.


Look, if you prefer more government, you belong toward the to. That's just the way I arranged it. I don't want to do a grid or any other complicated crap. Where would you put yourself relative to some of us others?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> What constraints? According to you, the government is allowed to do anything they can dream up until nine guys appointed by the government tell them to stop.


I'm sorry you hate the fact that there are two parties, Ax Man, but a substantial portion of the population believes that government should do more that what YOU think is constitutional, and they as firmly believe that this 'more' is constitutional as you believe that it's not constitutional. 

You really want a one-party state with yourself as King, admit it!

----------


## Maximatic

Yeah, Ghosts position is just a joke. But then I haven't heard of a government program he doesn't like.

----------


## Maximatic

> I'm sorry you hate the fact that there are two parties, Ax Man, but a substantial portion of the population believes that government should do more that what YOU think is constitutional, and they as firmly believe that this 'more' is constitutional as you believe that it's not constitutional. 
> 
> You really want a one-party state with yourself as King, admit it!


What does that have to do with you not thinking the government should not be restrained by anything but a Supreme Court decision?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> What does that have to do with you not thinking the government should not be restrained by anything but a Supreme Court decision?


What do YOU think it should be restrained by?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I don't think The Ax Man likes the US Constitution in the least.

----------


## lostbeyond

Ideally I am for a 19th century style statehood, that doesn't interfere with the group associations of individuals.  But I realize the historic necessity that leads this to pervasive totalitarianism, so I don't refuse exploiting the odd powers that a totalitarian state may create.  Especially that starting with the presidency of Wdooblya Cheney the US is never more than an inch away from this.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Look, if you prefer more government, you belong toward the to. That's just the way I arranged it. I don't want to do a grid or any other complicated crap. Where would you put yourself relative to some of us others?


I haven't bothered to even think about it.

----------


## Maximatic

> What do YOU think it should be restrained by?


This particular government is supposed to be restrained by the constitution. Everyone who takes an oath to protect and defend it has a duty to do that, which would involve seeing to it that unconstitutional laws, departments and programs are not enforced, and abolished as soon as they are seen, and that those who create those violations are executed for treason.

----------


## Maximatic

> Ideally I am for a 19th century style statehood, that doesn't interfere with the group associations of individuals.  But I realize the historic necessity that leads this to pervasive totalitarianism, so I don't refuse exploiting the odd powers that a totalitarian state may create.  Especially that starting with the presidency of Wdooblya Cheney the US is never more than an inch away from this.


An inch away from what?

----------


## Trinnity

*Gentlemen, please be civil. I'm watching....*
 @Calypso Jones @OceanloverOH

keep and eye on these fellas, ladies....

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> This particular government is supposed to be restrained by the constitution. Everyone who takes an oath to protect and defend it has a duty to do that, which would involve seeing to it that unconstitutional laws, departments and programs are not enforced, and abolished as soon as they are seen, and that those who create those violations are executed for treason.


I really now believe that there is somethng seriously wrong with your brain, Ax Man, and this is not intended as an insult.

Progressivists think they ARE fulfilling the constitutional provisions when they pass their legislation. So it amounts to your word against theirs as to what's constitutional. Wanna argue constitutional law with them? Make sure you can argue on an equal intellectual playing field with the likes of Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz, constitutional scholars of the first rank, and leading liberal progressives. 

And who is to execute those who YOU say violate the constitution? YOU? The court system? The Supremes?

You see how utterly fucking RETARDED your beliefs are once you start drawing out their real-world implications?

You have to learn to do what Thomas Sowell always counsels in a book of the same name: thinking beyond stage one.

----------


## Maximatic

> *Gentlemen, please be civil. I'm watching....*
>  @Calypso Jones @OceanloverOH
> 
> keep and eye on these fellas, ladies....


Oh shoot. You're not on the list. Where do you want to be?

----------


## Cat

This is very interesting! I thought I was more conservative but as we know, I am learning.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Oh shoot. You're not on the list. Where do you want to be?


Put her just under me, I double-dog dare ya!

----------


## DeadEye

People who form lists of other people based on political beliefs is sorta creepy and suggests other things too.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-08-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> I really now believe that there is somethng seriously wrong with your brain, Ax Man, and this is not intended as an insult.
> 
> Progressivists think they ARE fulfilling the constitutional provisions when they pass their legislation. So it amounts to your word against theirs as to what's constitutional. Wanna argue constitutional law with them? Make sure you can argue on an equal intellectual playing field with the likes of Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz, constitutional scholars of the first rank, and leading liberal progressives. 
> 
> And who is to execute those who YOU say violate the constitution? YOU? The court system? The Supremes?
> 
> You see how utterly fucking RETARDED your beliefs are once you start drawing out their real-world implications?
> 
> You have to learn to do what Thomas Sowell always counsels in a book of the same name: thinking beyond stage one.


Dude, this shit is old hat to me. I've been in your shoes. I made the same arguments you make, only I was much better at it. I know practically all the arguments ever to have been made over what is and is not constitutional and what the proper procedures are or should for deciding that, and what should be done about it. I am painfully aware of the problems with determining all of it and the impossibility of enforcing it. It's a good part of the reason for my stance on the matter. If I believed it possible to hold a constitutional government to account, it is possible that I would not be an anarchist.

----------


## Network

That's quite impressive that you were able to rank them like that.

I still confuse a few of the mods with each other.  And I'm pretty sure that Fyrenza is Cat during certain hours.  I'm not even sure which Don or Dan I have beef with.

----------


## Maximatic

> This is very interesting! I thought I was more conservative but as we know, I am learning.


 @Cat, I have no idea where to put you. All I really have to go by is your "Proud American" status tag. So I put you with the other Republicans. I don't know what "conservative" means any more. Everyone has their own esoteric interpretation of it. Where do you think you should be?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Dude, this shit is old hat to me. I've been in your shoes. I made the same arguments you make, only I was much better at it. I know practically all the arguments ever to have been made over what is and is not constitutional and what the proper procedures are or should for deciding that, and what should be done about it. I am painfully aware of the problems with determining all of it and the impossibility of enforcing it. It's a good part of the reason for my stance on the matter. If I believed it possible to hold a constitutional government to account, it is possible that I would not be an anarchist.


_
THAT_ by itself should tell you something right there!

If you were able 'to make better arguments than me' in espousing a rational, sensible position, but do so poorly and incoherently defending an impossible-to-the-point-of-being-comical anarchist position, doesn't that tell you that you are giving your allegiance TO THE COMPLETELY WRONG IDEOLOGY?

----------


## DonGlock26

@Axiomatic

States have a long history of civilization. Stateless people have a long history of stone age living. You are in love with a hypothetical dream and nothing more. 

That's been made abundantly clear, when I have questioned how your stateless society would operate. 

You are anti-authority. We get it. But, before the state, there was the tribe with blood ties, blood feuds, tribal warfare, raiding, etc. 

There will always be leaders. Would you prefer to vote for one, be a relative of one, or be enslaved by one?

----------

DeadEye (04-08-2014),Jim Scott (06-17-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> _
> THAT_ by itself should tell you something right there!
> 
> If you were able 'to make better arguments than me' in espousing a rational, sensible position, but do so poorly and incoherently defending an impossible-to-the-point-of-being-comical anarchist position, doesn't that tell you that you are giving your allegiance TO THE COMPLETELY WRONG IDEOLOGY?


It's a break from reality in favor of a fantasy.

----------


## Maximatic

> That's quite impressive that you were able to rank them like that.
> 
> I still confuse a few of the mods with each other.  And I'm pretty sure that Fyrenza is Cat during certain hours.  I'm not even sure which Don or Dan I have beef with.


I just copied all the names on the list of who logged in within the last 24 hours and made some guesses. I think, overall, it's pretty close, though. So far nobody has said they should be moved. Some don't like it, but they didn't say where they should be.

----------


## Network

Before the states used the advantages of technology to rule the slaves, there were the tribes who allegedly fought each other with spears over each others' skulls, so they tell you.

The state goes so far back into history that it can really not be remotely compared to the modern age, or even the AD age.  The dinosaurs even had a corrupt state.

----------


## DeadEye

> I just copied all the names on the list of who logged in within the last 24 hours and made some guesses. I think, overall, it's pretty close, though. So far nobody has said they should be moved. Some don't like it, but they didn't say where they should be.


That's because they may not want to even acknowledge the list as valid. What was your point with the list? Just because some wish not to respond does not validate your list in any way,really.

----------

sotmfs (04-09-2014)

----------


## Network

I'm ultimately a nihilist who knows that we live on Satan's planet for a century at most, and all of the arguments are moot, because the most brutal and careless will enjoy this flesh experience the most.

----------


## Maximatic

> It's a break from reality in favor of a fantasy.





> _
> THAT_ by itself should tell you something right there!
> 
> If you were able 'to make better arguments than me' in espousing a  rational, sensible position, but do so poorly and incoherently defending  an impossible-to-the-point-of-being-comical anarchist position, doesn't  that tell you that you are giving your allegiance TO THE COMPLETELY  WRONG IDEOLOGY?




You both need to take a basic course in logic so you can learn to recognize valid reasoning. I started a thread about it. Since you would both require an introduction to the introductory course, that would be a good place for you to start. Then you can just ask questions, and I'll guide you through it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Before the states used the advantages of technology to rule the slaves, there were the tribes who allegedly fought each other with spears over each others' skulls, so they tell you.
> 
> The state goes so far back into history that it can really not be remotely compared to the modern age, or even the AD age.  The dinosaurs even had a corrupt state.


"History" is the written record of state civilization. There was NO history until the state created a need for writing to record property and taxes. 

There is no "alleged" about tribal violence among stateless people. It is well documented and even occurs today. 

Of course, ancient states can be compared to modern states. Armies, taxation, public works, writing, gov't, legislatures, codified laws, diplomacy, etc. all have a long history that can be traced back to the ancient state. 

You aren't going to say that the dinosaurs were a hoax?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Let me know if you don't like your spot.


 I think you put me in the correct spot.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> You both need to take a basic course in logic so you can learn to recognize valid reasoning. I started a thread about it. Since you would both require an introduction to the introductory course, that would be a good place for you to start. Then you can just ask questions, and I'll guide you through it.


I've watched you fail in trying to answer basic questions about your fantasy. You have nothing to teach anyone here.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I just copied all the names on the list of who logged in within the last 24 hours and made some guesses. I think, overall, it's pretty close, though. So far nobody has said they should be moved. Some don't like it, but they didn't say where they should be.


Don't you DARE take me off of the King of the Statists pole position! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Network

> You both need to take a basic course in logic so you can learn to recognize valid reasoning. I started a thread about it. Since you would both require an introduction to the introductory course, that would be a good place for you to start. Then you can just ask questions, and I'll guide you through it.



Hey Axiomatic, give me an update on XL and...Rina <tears>

----------


## Dos Equis

> Sorry, man, truthiness is toward the bottom on this one. Do you feel you should be lower?


No worries, it beats being closer to the top.

----------


## Maximatic

> People who form lists of other people based on political beliefs is sorta creepy and suggests other things too.


If I were the kind of person to ever report a post, this is the kind I would report. It's about a person's beliefs, @Anonymous. That's all it's ever about.

----------


## Maximatic

> Hey Axiomatic, give me an update on XL and...Rina <tears>


I can't. I don't follow. Sorry, man.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You both need to take a basic course in logic so you can learn to recognize valid reasoning. I started a thread about it. Since you would both require an introduction to the introductory course, that would be a good place for you to start. Then you can just ask questions, and I'll guide you through it.


Yeah, yeah, Copi's was my textbook in university, big fucking whoop-de-do, as if YOU'RE the only one who took philosophy courses in university! I never got lower than mid nineties in ANY philosophy course I took, way back then, and I've only added to it since, so get off your fake lectern, you're not the only one here that has been to university, asshole.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dan40

In the timeless words of Joseph Biden,

What about Me?

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Network

> I can't. I don't follow. Sorry, man.


Broken internet-heart. People were talking about some serious health issues. I just hope that didn't amount to anything.

Hey max, the statists are going to rule till kingdom come, long after we're consumed by worms.

The best we can do is acknowledge that there are never any planes in their silly stories.

----------



----------


## RMNIXON

I only found this Pathetic Thread because I was notified of the mention.

Now I will ignore it!  :Smiley20: 

140109_richard_nixon_ap_605.jpg

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> In the timeless words of Joseph Biden,
> 
> What about Me?


Just don't even THINK of supplanting me from my King Statist Status!!! :Smiley ROFLMAO:  [say THAT three times as fast as you can!]

----------


## Calypso Jones

I am not happy with my ranking.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I only found this Pathetic Thread because I was notified of the mention.
> 
> Now I will ignore it! 
> 
> 140109_richard_nixon_ap_605.jpg


You are a wise Dick!

----------


## Maximatic

> I've watched you fail in trying to answer basic questions about your fantasy. You have nothing to teach anyone here.


Oh, you want to go back over that again? Link to it. I'll show you, for the third time, where your questions were answered. And, maybe you can take that question "how much would the remedy be?" to congress and ask them why they can't tell you how much the next judge to rule on a dispute between two private parties will award. Tell them that since they can't give you the amount, they must not know what they're doing :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yeah, yeah, Copi's was my textbook in university, big fucking whoop-de-do, as if YOU'RE the only one who took philosophy courses in university! I never got lower than mid nineties in ANY philosophy course I took, way back then, and I've only added to it since, so get off your fake lectern, you're not the only one here that has been to university, asshole.


 I would have put you up top too. Why are you jumping on him without saying why you shouldn't be in the order he put you in. Prove him wrong or leave the thread.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> Yeah, yeah, Copi's was my textbook in university, big fucking whoop-de-do, as if YOU'RE the only one who took philosophy courses in university! I never got lower than mid nineties in ANY philosophy course I took, way back then, and I've only added to it since, so get off your fake lectern, you're not the only one here that has been to university, asshole.


He cuts and pastes the rantings of some obscure ones, but when it comes to defending his fantasy, he can't pull his own weight.

----------


## Network

The state is an obvious corrupt hoax, the constitution is void and null, the presidents and all the other hill-puppets are morons and/or worthless.

This much should be obvious by now even to the earthworms.

----------

sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I would have put you up top too. Why are you jumping on him without saying why you shouldn't be in the order he put you in. Prove him wrong or leave the thread.


Don't you have a Satanic Ritual to perform tonight or something, I thought there was a full moon?

----------


## Maximatic

> That's because they may not want to even acknowledge the list as valid. What was your point with the list? Just because some wish not to respond does not validate your list in any way,really.


It's fun. Get over yourself.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Progressivists think they ARE fulfilling the constitutional provisions when they pass their legislation. So it amounts to your word against theirs as to what's constitutional. Wanna argue constitutional law with them? Make sure you can argue on an equal intellectual playing field with the likes of Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz, constitutional scholars of the first rank, and leading liberal progressives. 
> 
> .


This is where I wholeheartedly disagree.

When it comes to the lust for personal power, the rule of law is viewed as either a tool to hammer your adversaries with or a hindrance that must be overcome.  Just look at history to see this.  You can't expect me to believe that Obama gave a damn about the Constitution when he signed Obamacare into law.  They lined up and sneered at those who said it was not Constitutional.  Then when it reached SCOTUS, low and behold it was declared unconstitutional as it was.  It took judicial legislating to change the law to make it somewhat Constitutional.

Do you really expect me to believe that progressives like FDR cared the least about the Constitution when he locked up Japanese Americans or when he came up with the Court Packing scheme to get rid of SCOTUS who would not pass his New Deal policies?  There is a reason that FDR is a progressive hero.

I view the Constitution as I do scripture.  It is there as a warning.  Those who embrace it for their own power will treat it as those in Washington do the Constitution, as a weapon only and reinterpret the rest away that may hinder their goals.  However, those who humble themselves and see that it is set there to curb their own lust for personal power for their own good, will heed it and be better for it in the long run.

----------

fyrenza (04-08-2014),Jim Scott (06-17-2014),sparsely (04-08-2014),wist43 (04-09-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Don't you have a Satanic Ritual to perform tonight or something, I thought there was a full moon?


 No that's for you. Get under your skin don't I.

----------


## Network

> Don't you have a Satanic Ritual to perform tonight or something, I thought there was a full moon?


I was sure this comment was for me.  Whale Done, roadmaster.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> Just don't even THINK of supplanting me from my King Statist Status!!! [say THAT three times as fast as you can!]


I am not the fig plucker, I am the fig plucker's son, but I will pluck your figs until the fig plucker comes.

I am not the fig plucker, I am the fig plucker's son, but I will pluck your figs until the fig plucker comes.

I am not the fig plucker, I am the fig plucker's son, but I will pluck your figs until the fig plucker comes.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> No that's for you. Get under your skin don't I.


In the sense of making my skin crawl, yes indeed!

----------


## Dos Equis

> I only found this Pathetic Thread because I was notified of the mention.
> 
> Now I will ignore it! 
> 
> Attachment 3382


Resigning again?

Say it ain't so!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh, you want to go back over that again? Link to it. I'll show you, for the third time, where your questions were answered. And, maybe you can take that question "how much would the remedy be?" to congress and ask them why they can't tell you how much the next judge to rule on a dispute between two private parties will award. Tell them that since they can't give you the amount, they must not know what they're doing


I pointed out your use of fallacies. You can't tell us how your fantasy stateless society would function in the real world. Where would your fantasy judges come from? Who would pay them? Hahahaha!!!!!

I'll tell you what, why don't you try it right here. Tell us who would defend the borders, pave the roads, police society, and how it would all be voluntarily paid for in your own words. No cutting and pasting of some longed-winded philosophical rant about a fantasy world of what-ifs and could/shoulds.

----------


## Roadmaster

> In the sense of making my skin crawl, yes indeed!


Good

----------


## Dos Equis

> I am not happy with my ranking.


Come up with your own list then.

----------


## Maximatic

> Yeah, yeah, Copi's was my textbook in university, big fucking whoop-de-do, as if YOU'RE the only one who took philosophy courses in university! I never got lower than mid nineties in ANY philosophy course I took, way back then, and I've only added to it since, so get off your fake lectern, you're not the only one here that has been to university, asshole.


Then why do you make only shallow arguments and ignore real arguments?

----------


## Maximatic

> I am not happy with my ranking.


Where do you want to be?

----------


## DeadEye

> If I were the kind of person to ever report a post, this is the kind I would report. It's about a person's beliefs, @Anonymous. That's all it's ever about.


Do what you must, your beliefs doesn't carry anymore weight round here than mine. No matter how much window dressing you put on it.. By listing members in this fashion you are insulting those who disagree with the list in general and/or the positioning on said list. If you think this list to be accurate, which you apparently do, why is it so important to inform others that they are on your list?

----------


## Archer

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


Glad you at least made me a moderate but I am for elimination of the federal wing as we know it. I am pro community governing and peaceful coexistence between communities that may not get along because they have their own damn communities.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> This is where I wholeheartedly disagree.
> 
> When it comes to the lust for personal power, the rule of law is viewed as either a tool to hammer your adversaries with or a hindrance that must be overcome.  Just look at history to see this.  You can't expect me to believe that Obama gave a damn about the Constitution when he signed Obamacare into law.  They lined up and sneered at those who said it was not Constitutional.  Then when it reached SCOTUS, low and behold it was declared unconstitutional as it was.  It took judicial legislating to change the law to make it somewhat Constitutional.
> 
> Do you really expect me to believe that progressives like FDR cared the least about the Constitution when he locked up Japanese Americans or when he came up with the Court Packing scheme to get rid of SCOTUS who would not pass his New Deal policies?  There is a reason that FDR is a progressive hero.
> 
> I view the Constitution as I do scripture.  It is there as a warning.  Those who embrace it for their own power will treat it as those in Washington do the Constitution, as a weapon only and reinterpret the rest away that may hinder their goals.  However, those who humble themselves and see that it is set there to curb their own lust for personal power for their own good, will heed it and be better for it in the long run.


They don't necessarily see it as a lust for power, or rather no more than is normal for politicians of any stripe.

They see their program as being for the good of all citizens, and that the constitution gives them the full go-ahead on this.

In short, you can't use the constitution to fight and win the battle of ideas. BOTH sides use the constitution quite skillfully for that. The battle has to be won on the merits of one side or the other. 

I've hated that Glenn Beck-ish ascription of a semi-supernatural aura to the constitution. It was a compromise at best, and many of the framers--especially Jefferson-- were certain that it would have to be reformatted in a few years. Don't fetishize it too much, it's only an instrument.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I pointed out your use of fallacies. You can't tell us how your fantasy stateless society would function in the real world. Where would your fantasy judges come from? Who would pay them? Hahahaha!!!!!
> 
> I'll tell you what, why don't you try it right here. Tell us who would defend the borders, pave the roads, police society, and how it would all be voluntarily paid for in your own words. No cutting and pasting of some longed-winded philosophical rant about a fantasy world of what-ifs and could/shoulds.


The reason anarchy cannot work is that the nature of mankind dictates that they lust for power.  There is power in numbers, and that is the appeal to collectivism.

Just look how the US got sucked into the collectivist vortex.  It took the collectivist war machines in Europe to drag them kicking and screaming into the collectivist poo.  Thanks to men like Wilson and FDR, they used the war to turn the US into a collectivist state and a world conquering war machine.

Just look at the poor Ukraine.  They tried to remain independent from Russia and the EU.  Russia then invaded.  They were going to get swallowed by one or the other.  It was only a matter of time.

----------


## fyrenza

> Don't you have a Satanic Ritual to perform tonight or something, I thought there was a full moon?


Good GRIEF, you know, as well as I do, that she's a Godly woman,

and you say ^_that_​?^??

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Then why do you make only shallow arguments and ignore real arguments?


Because you can make very cogent and convincing arguments for the existence of unicorns until you remember that they don't actually exist. In short, your arguments are a clever intellectual game, like a complex acrostic, but empty of any real content and interest.

----------

sotmfs (04-09-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Good GRIEF, you know, as well as I do, that she's a Godly woman,
> 
> and you say ^_that_​?^??


She is the deadliest enemy of the Triune God.

----------


## Roadmaster

I don't feel the list is insulting. He asked if you didn't like your rank. If I had been on top I would have at least asked why without attacking him. It's ok to have an opinion.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Good GRIEF, you know, as well as I do, that she's a Godly woman,
> 
> and you say ^_that_​?^??


He hates the New Testament.

----------


## Dos Equis

> They don't necessarily see it as a lust for power, or rather no more than is normal for politicians of any stripe.
> 
> They see their program as being for the good of all citizens, and that the constitution gives them the full go-ahead on this.
> 
> In short, you can't use the constitution to fight and win the battle of ideas. BOTH sides use the constitution quite skillfully for that. The battle has to be won on the merits of one side or the other. 
> 
> I've hated that Glenn Beck-ish ascription of a semi-supernatural aura to the constitution. It was a compromise at best, and many of the framers--especially Jefferson-- were certain that it would have to be reformatted in a few years. Don't fetishize it too much, it's only an instrument.


Bull.  I can easily point out how locking away Japanese Americans during World War 2 was unconstitutional, and not a soul on earth would challenge that notion, not even you.

As for it being the "good" of society, no it was not.  It was simply the delusional bigoted mind of FDR at work.  That is what the Constitution is there to try and prevent.  It is there to prevent those who think they are doing good, but really they are just terrorizing innocent civilians like the IRS going after conservatives today.

What scares the poo out of me, is that your post seems to convey that the Constitutional is pointless because law makers will simply do what they think is best for us anyway.  Then again, I guess that is what we have today, so it should not be that surprising.

I change my mind, you deserve the top spot, you've earned it.

----------

fyrenza (04-08-2014),Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> He hates the New Testament.


I love the New Testament more than you, and am more attuned to the message of the Prince of Peace than you are, because he harboured no hatred in his heart whereas that's your dominating emotions. I'm not even a CHRISTIAN and I'm closer to Christ than you are! 

Sucks for you, huh?

----------


## Roadmaster

> I'm not even a CHRISTIAN


 I know

----------

fyrenza (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> I don't feel the list is insulting. He asked if you didn't like your rank. If I had been on top I would have at least asked why without attacking him. It's ok to have an opinion.


Like assholes, everybody has one.

Except the people with the "bags!"

----------


## DonGlock26

> The reason anarchy cannot work is that the nature of mankind dictates that they lust for power.  There is power in numbers, and that is the appeal to collectivism.
> 
> Just look how the US got sucked into the collectivist vortex.  It took the collectivist war machines in Europe to drag them kicking and screaming into the collectivist poo.  Thanks to men like Wilson and FDR, they used the war to turn the US into a collectivist state and a world conquering war machine.
> 
> Just look at the poor Ukraine.  They tried to remain independent from Russia and the EU.  Russia then invaded.  They were going to get swallowed by one or the other.  It was only a matter of time.


That sure doesn't sound like the OP's fantasy to me. It sounds like the world is really a "bad neighborhood". If I lived in a bad neighborhood, I'd want to be powerful and not a weak, stateless person.

----------


## Network

The state is not successful in preventing crime or the formation of rogue cliques who would attempt to replace them as a monopoly of force and fraud.

They are only successful in convincing most of the people that they prevent such occurrences, when in fact, they are the exact problem they purport to prevent.  The threats they sell you are completely fabricated 75% of the time at best..or worst.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),sparsely (04-08-2014),squidward (04-09-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Because you can make very cogent and convincing arguments for the existence of unicorns until you remember that they don't actually exist. In short, your arguments are a clever intellectual game, like a complex acrostic, but empty of any real content and interest.


Bingo! A smoke screen to conceal a profound lack of substance.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The state is not successful in preventing crime or the formation of rogue cliques who would attempt to replace them as a monopoly of force and fraud.
> 
> They are only successful in convincing most of the people that they prevent such occurrences, when in fact, they are the exact problem they purport to prevent.  The threats they sale you are completely fabricated 75% of the time at best.


Are stateless societies able to "prevent crime and the formation of rogue cliques"?

----------


## Maximatic

> This is where I wholeheartedly disagree.
> 
> When it comes to the lust for personal power, the rule of law is viewed as either a tool to hammer your adversaries with or a hindrance that must be overcome.  Just look at history to see this.  You can't expect me to believe that Obama gave a damn about the Constitution when he signed Obamacare into law.  They lined up and sneered at those who said it was not Constitutional.  Then when it reached SCOTUS, low and behold it was declared unconstitutional as it was.  It took judicial legislating to change the law to make it somewhat Constitutional.
> 
> Do you really expect me to believe that progressives like FDR cared the least about the Constitution when he locked up Japanese Americans or when he came up with the Court Packing scheme to get rid of SCOTUS who would not pass his New Deal policies?  There is a reason that FDR is a progressive hero.
> 
> I view the Constitution as I do scripture.  It is there as a warning.  Those who embrace it for their own power will treat it as those in Washington do the Constitution, as a weapon only and reinterpret the rest away that may hinder their goals.  However, those who humble themselves and see that it is set there to curb their own lust for personal power for their own good, will heed it and be better for it in the long run.


I sort of want to take issue with that last paragraph, but I don't know. Hm.
Well there aren't enough of the last kind to make any difference.

----------


## Network

> Are stateless societies able to "prevent crime and the formation of rogue cliques"?


More competition in the protection of private property rights, as opposed to the state which has always been an increasing threat and intrusion on private property rights, and is an absolute monopoly over an arbitrary territory.

It's obvious, yes.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Bull.  I can easily point out how locking away Japanese Americans during World War 2 was unconstitutional, and not a soul on earth would challenge that notion.
> 
> As for it being the "good" of society, no it was not.  It was the delusional bigoted mind of FDR at work.  That is what the Constitution is there to try and prevent.  It is there to prevent those who think they are doing good, but really they are just terrorizing innocent civilians like the IRS going after conservatives today.
> 
> What scares the poo out of me, is that your post seems to convey that the Constitutional is pointless because law makers will simply do what they think is best for us anyway.  Then again, I guess that is what we have today, so it should not be that surprising.
> 
> I change my mind, you deserve the top spot, you've earned it.


Wrong, the problem with you libertarians is that you want instant, easy solutions for everything, and that's simply not ever going to happen. 

Governance is HARD, and shaping a society according to your vision is BRUTALLY hard. You have to change the shape of courts through appointments, and make sure you have enough legislative strength to push those changes through. You have to get the citizens to see, NOT by your ringing words, but by the results of your policies, that your solutions are the right ones for the country.

Then, some day, after incalculable struggles, you may find that you have shaped the default public opinion into one of self-reliance and personal responsibility, and be able to keep it that way for a few decades like FDR shaped America in the general direction of social democracy for several decades until it all started to crumble [and it STILL will not completely disappear; some ideas were GOOD ones, after all].

And THAT'S all you can ever really DO in politics. Sorry to disappoint you and bum you out. ALL victories will be temporary and imperfect ones and will always have to be refought again and again.

This is what I call a 'grown up' position to take, bereft of fantasies and daydreams.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> That sure doesn't sound like the OP's fantasy to me. It sounds like the world is really a "bad neighborhood". If I lived in a bad neighborhood, I'd want to be powerful and not a weak, stateless person.


If you look at the history of mankind, it is a never ending pissing contest for power.  The great majority of men who have walked the earth have been slaves.

Shrug.  Our nature is flawed.  It will never change.  There are only brief glimpses of truth that point out these flaws and offer solutions, like Christ on the mount or the Founders writing the Declaration of Independence.

Like Jesus dying on a cross, the Founders were also betrayed as their nation was lost and fell into the hands of elitist collectivists who view personal liberty as the greatest evil on earth.  They are there for "our own good" because we eat too much, drive cars that burn too much carbon emitting fumes, use light bulbs that use too much electricity, and have too much disposable income that does not benefit society in the least etc.  You think it's bad now, but I predict in 10 years we will look back on Obama and wish he were president.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-08-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> More competition in the protection of private property rights, as opposed to the state which has always been an increasing threat and intrusion on private property rights, and is an absolute monopoly over an arbitrary territory.
> 
> It's obvious, yes.


That competition is called the tribe. A familial pact of defense. There is no justice in the sense that we understand it in a tribal system, if you aren't a member of the tribe. 

The idea of a market for security is absurd. The people with the most effective security force would RULE the "customers" and not the other way around. Has everyone forgot about the feudal system?

You have more property rights in the USA, than  you would have in a shallow grave with your family enslaved by a tribe. 

Unhappiness with the current progressive tide of gov't is rational. Wanting to return to tribal warfare is not.

----------


## DonGlock26

> If you look at the history of mankind, it is a never ending pissing contest for power.  The great majority of men who have walked the earth have been slaves.
> 
> Shrug.  Our nature is flawed.  It will never change.  There are only brief glimpses of truth that point out these flaws and offer solutions, like Christ on the mount or the Founders writing the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Like Jesus dying on a cross, the Founders were also betrayed as their nation was lost and fell into the hands of elitist collectivists who view personal liberty as the greatest evil on earth.  They are there for "our own good" because we eat too much, drive cars that burn too much carbon emitting fumes, use light bulbs that use too much electricity, and have too much disposable income that does not benefit society in the least etc.  You think it's bad now, but I predict in 10 years we will look back on Obama and wish he were president.


I agree fully with you, and that's why I'm defending Western Civilization and oppose the OP's childish, silly notion of escape.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Wrong, the problem with you libertarians is that you want instant, easy solutions for everything, and that's simply not ever going to happen. 
> 
> Governance is HARD, and shaping a society according to your vision is BRUTALLY hard. You have to change the shape of courts through appointments, and make sure you have enough legislative strength to push those changes through. You have to get the citizens to see, NOT by your ringing words, but by the results of your policies, that your solutions are the right ones for the country.
> 
> Then, some day, after incalculable struggles, you may find that you have shaped the default public opinion into one of self-reliance and personal responsibility, and be able to keep it that way for a few decades like FDR shaped America in the general direction of social democracy for several decades until it all started to crumble [and it STILL will not completely disappear; some ideas were GOOD ones, after all].
> 
> And THAT'S all you can ever really DO in politics. Sorry to disappoint you and bum you out. ALL victories will be temporary and imperfect ones and will always have to be refought again and again.
> 
> This is what I call a 'grown up' position to take, bereft of fantasies and daydreams.


What are you babbling about?  Congress has an approval rating of only around 10%.  Guess what, they have failed to show the American people that their policies are working, yet they keep getting elected anyway.  Democracy be damned, they don't need our approval nor do they care.

How do they do it?  They use a variety of tactics.  As we see in N. C. they have used rampant wide spread voting fraud, they control the press, they dumb down our schools and indoctrinate our children, they use the IRS to silence opposition etc., no doubt, they do things that I have no inkling about to control the masses, nor do I care to know because it would just piss me off more.

Why do you think that America was founded?   It was founded because it had an elite class of rich aristocrats that chose to lead the way.  It also helped that there was an ocean that separated them from their captors, and that their captors had powerful foes who supported the US all in the name of helping to fight England.

There was no shaping courts and convincing people that they needed to break away from England.  In fact, the majority seemed to be indifferent to their plight.  It took a marginalized group of men to carry the fight in spite of being snubbed by the majority of those in society that they were fighting to free.

Wake up man, read a history book.

----------

sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> I agree fully with you, and that's why I'm defending Western Civilization and oppose the OP's childish, silly notion of escape.


But what if the collectivist side you support wins globally?  What sort of hell would that entail?

After all, every collectivist that has walked the face of the earth has tried to do this and will continue to try to do it.  It is only a matter of time before someone succeeds.

----------


## Maximatic

> In short, your arguments are a clever intellectual  game, like a complex acrostic, but empty of any real content and  interest.


Condensing the positions I want to advance into an argument makes that position clear and easy to understand. It also gives you an easy way to show that what I'm saying is false. All you have to do is show that one, just one of the premises is false, or that my reasoning is fallacious. All this fluff is just completely unnecessary. Stop dancing around. Shut down my arguments. Shut down ONE of them. Or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.




> Because you can make very cogent and convincing arguments for the existence of unicorns until you remember that they don't actually exist.


You keep saying that. I keep telling you that you cannot make a sound argument that shows the existence of unicorns. I've asked you to back it up, if you believe it, and make the argument, but you never do. You never back anything up. What you're doing here is scorning logic to compensate for your inability to use it. I can't imagine anything more fallacious and pathetic than that.

The reason you can't make such an argument is that there would have to be some kind of evidence that a premise in your argument could appeal to. But you know unicorns are fictional, so you wouldn't try to find any such evidence. 

But really, you claim to know otherwise so show it. Make the argument that unicorns exist.

----------


## DonGlock26

> But what if the collectivist side you support wins globally?  What sort of hell would that entail?
> 
> After all, every collectivist that has walked the face of the earth has tried to do this and will continue to try to do it.  It is only a matter of time before someone succeeds.


What collectivists do I support??

----------


## DonGlock26

> Condensing the positions I want to advance into an argument makes that position clear and easy to understand. It also gives you an easy way to show that what I'm saying is false. All you have to do is show that one, just one of the premises is false, or that my reasoning is fallacious. All this fluff is just completely unnecessary. Stop dancing around. Shut down my arguments. Shut down ONE of them. Or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that. I keep telling you that you cannot make a sound argument that shows the existence of unicorns. I've asked you to back it up, if you believe it, and make the argument, but you never do. You never back anything up. What you're doing here is scorning logic to compensate for your inability to use it. I can't imagine anything more fallacious and pathetic than that.
> 
> The reason you can't make such an argument is that there would have to be some kind of evidence that a premise in your argument could appeal to. But you know unicorns are fictional, so you wouldn't try to find any such evidence. 
> 
> But really, you claim to know otherwise so show it. Make the argument that unicorns exist.


Post your argument here.

----------


## Dos Equis

> What collectivists do I support??


The Western powers have devised alliances of various sorts.  As globalism strengthens borders will become more obscure in this regard.

Just look how the US operates.  It throws money at every country on the face of the earth to do it's bidding.  Those that refuse get nixed like Gaddafi.

One by one they fall.  The US has troops in over 80 countries around the world.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The Western powers have devised alliances of various sorts.  As globalism strengthens borders will become more obscure in this regard.


I asked you what "I" was supporting as you suggested.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I asked you what "I" was supporting as you suggested.


You said that you were defending Western Civilization.

Can you expand on what you mean by this?

----------


## liberal_hack

OK, I'll go first but will only do a top 10

1- Texas: yes Texas. It is as diverse as it is large. You can find caves, flatlands, swamps, Gulf of Mexico and lots of space

2- Oregon: if you can get past the rain, it's God's country as you head east

3: Michigan and Minnesota: they are one and the same to me and if you are a freshwater fisherman, then they are the states for you

4: Georgia : Where else do you get down home people, the ocean and the mountains?

5: Florida: What more can be said about miles and miles of coastline, wonderful weather and the Keys

6: Wyoming: no kidding. There is something to be said about big sky country (Montana too) and you need to go off roading and simply marvel at what God created.

7: Colorado: maybe I have a soft spot for prairie dogs getting sucked into jet engines. But seriously, the views are spectacular as are the rivers

8: South Carolina: diverse geography, great down home cooking and good people

9: Arizona: Come on, the Grand Canyon

10: New York: no, not the city. Try upstate New York, the finger lakes, and let's not forget Niagara Falls


so there you are. That is how I rate the top 10 states

----------


## fyrenza

I might be a little lower than I should be,

but I'm learning, as fast as I can, 
and trying to see how things go in my life, right now ~
what "works," for everyone concerned,
and what makes the other folks feel "put upon."

No one's a hermit, 
nor some mugging, murdering, molesting Viking hoard,

so we come together on principles of fairness to all.

i.e.  There's a really popular Mexican restaurant in Kenedy that still allows smoking ~
NOT during certain hours of their lunch/dinner rush,
nor for certain hours after Church, when lots of Christians go out to eat,

but it gives EVERYONE a chance to enjoy the experience,

and the business owners the liberty to make their own decisions about it.

If they LOST money doing it?
They'd quit doing it, in a New York minute,
so a free market is allowed,
and capitalism is the name of the game.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),Max Rockatansky (04-08-2014),sotmfs (04-09-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You said that you were defending Western Civilization.
> 
> Can you expand on what you mean by this?


In a nutshell, the ideas that gave us the US constitution, free market capitalism, and liberty. This system reached its zenith prior to the progressive social revolution.

----------


## Roadmaster

> 8: South Carolina: diverse geography, great down home cooking and good people


 They are.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Interesting.


It's based on this view point: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...perly-defined/

----------


## Dos Equis

> OK, I'll go first but will only do a top 10
> 
> 1- Texas: yes Texas. It is as diverse as it is large. You can find caves, flatlands, swamps, Gulf of Mexico and lots of space
> 
> 2- Oregon: if you can get past the rain, it's God's country as you head east
> 
> 3: Michigan and Minnesota: they are one and the same to me and if you are a freshwater fisherman, then they are the states for you
> 
> 4: Georgia : Where else do you get down home people, the ocean and the mountains?
> ...


Michigan?  #3?

It's that defective liberal gene at work, isn't it?

----------


## Maximatic

> Post your argument here.


http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...u-need-to-know

----------


## Maximatic

> I pointed out your use of fallacies. You can't tell us how your fantasy stateless society would function in the real world. Where would your fantasy judges come from? Who would pay them? Hahahaha!!!!!
> 
> I'll tell you what, why don't you try it right here. Tell us who would defend the borders, pave the roads, police society, and how it would all be voluntarily paid for in your own words. No cutting and pasting of some longed-winded philosophical rant about a fantasy world of what-ifs and could/shoulds.


All the boarders are property lines. Defense is paid for by the owners of their respective property. Roads are paid for by anyone who wants to build a road. Security is paid for by everyone who wants security.  Judges are paid for by anyone who wants to resolve a dispute.

----------


## Maximatic

> OK, I'll go first but will only do a top 10
> 
> 1- Texas: yes Texas. It is as diverse as it is large. You can find caves, flatlands, swamps, Gulf of Mexico and lots of space
> 
> 2- Oregon: if you can get past the rain, it's God's country as you head east
> 
> 3: Michigan and Minnesota: they are one and the same to me and if you are a freshwater fisherman, then they are the states for you
> 
> 4: Georgia : Where else do you get down home people, the ocean and the mountains?
> ...


Did I misspell statists?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Did I misspell statists?


No, but you do misuse like most anarchists.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
 _concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry_

----------


## DonGlock26

> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...u-need-to-know





> Everyone  already has all the knowledge necessary to understand that a voluntary  society is perfectly feasible. It’s only a matter of connecting some  dots and unlearning some things that are not true.
> 
> 1.) A society where the law forbids fraud and the initiation of force is a pleasant, orderly society.
> 
> 2.) The law of any society is what the people of that society believe the law to be.
> 
> 3.) People can believe that fraud and the initiation of force is unlawful.
> 
> 4.) Anything, for which there is a demand and can be provided, can be provided on the open market.
> ...


OK, where are your proofs for each one? They are full of opinion and absolute statements.

----------


## fyrenza

> Michigan?  #3?
> 
> It's that defective liberal gene at work, isn't it?


From the cab of a Big Rig,

all you see are the highways, not so much the byways,

but Idaho was one of the most gorgeous states to drive through

that I'd ever experienced.

<sigh>


Oh!

Pardon the interruption!  :Wink:

----------


## DonGlock26

> All the boarders are property lines. Defense is paid for by the owners of their respective property. Roads are paid for by anyone who wants to build a road. Security is paid for by everyone who wants security.  Judges are paid for by anyone who wants to resolve a dispute.


Who sets up the borders in your stateless society? Who sets up property lines?

What makes one an owner of property in your stateless society?

So, a person who builds a road would have ownership and full control of the road?

What if, a person cannot afford to pay for security or the price of a missing person search for a child?

What if, I decide that my security means moving you away from my road?

So, a rich man can buy the best judge that money can buy. Do you see where this is going yet???

----------


## fyrenza

> OK, where are your proofs for each one? They are full of opinion and absolute statements.


You disagree with them, and don't believe that they're pretty self-evident?

#1)  You think a society that does allow fraud and the initiation of force would be pleasant?

Is it that you do agree with the first part, but not the second?

You ask for proofs, without even thinking about them,
depending upon someone else to do the grunt work,
and if the citations are too long,
or from what you'd consider shaky sources,
you'll just ignore them?

Why would @Axiomatic owe you one single moment of his time,

when you spent, what?  A minute typing and posting that <koff> _reply_​?

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),Roadmaster (04-08-2014)

----------


## wist43

> This is very interesting! I thought I was more conservative but as we know, I am learning.


I'm not sure that there are very many actual "conservatives" on this forum. The ones that claim to be conservative are not what I would consider to be conservative, and I've been at this for a long time.

I used to consider myself a conservative, but the conservatives I knew respected the Constitution and other peoples liberty. What passes for a conservative today - they believe in open-ended interpretations of the Constitution which in effect negate the negative nature of the Constitution.

Worse than that, they are more than willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits their fancy. The Patriot Act is an absolute affront to liberty, grotesquely unconstitutional, and every "conservative" in the country is sick in love with it.

Then there is "the war on drugs". The FedGov has no constitutional authority to prohibit drugs, just as they had no such authority to prohibit alcohol - which is why they needed the 18th amendment back in the 30's. To screw the Constitution around to allow for prohibition today, "conservatives" have to agree with the progressive interpretation of the _necessary and proper clause_ of the Constitution.

This interpretation is an open-ended grant of power to the FedGov. It has been interpreted to allow that unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies have the power to make law - no conservative would agree with that. Yet most of the members of this forum that call themselves conservatives agree with that. They agree with it b/c they want to use it for the DEA to abuse the rights of drug users.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> The Western powers have devised alliances of various sorts.  As globalism strengthens borders will become more obscure in this regard.
> 
> Just look how the US operates.  It throws money at every country on the face of the earth to do it's bidding.  Those that refuse get nixed like Gaddafi.j
> 
> One by one they fall.  The US has troops in over 80 countries around the world.


If you believe in borders you are not a libertarian.

----------


## Maximatic

> OK, where are your proofs for each one? They are full of opinion and absolute statements.


http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/9330-All-you-need-to-know?p=273628&viewfull=1#post273628

----------


## Maximatic

> No, but you do misuse like most anarchists.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
>  _concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry_


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4]

The term was coined by anti-statists as a reference to non-anti-statist, or "statists". The least you could do is allow us to define our own terms.

----------

sparsely (04-08-2014)

----------


## squidward

> Quit masturbating with your keyboard.


Oh my, ........you are so full of whit.

----------


## squidward

> I LOVE the government...when it works the way it's supposed to, is lean, cheap and efficient, and operates under reasonable constraints.


but just never vote for individuals who carry it out.

----------


## squidward

> big fucking whoop-de-do, 
>  asshole.


awe shucks, he learned some bad words.

----------


## squidward

> Are stateless societies able to "prevent crime and the formation of rogue cliques"?


they are less able than governments to promote, strengthen and institutionalize them.

----------



----------


## squidward

> Governance is HARD, and shaping a society according to your vision is BRUTALLY hard. You have to change the shape of courts through appointments, and make sure you have enough legislative strength to push those changes through. You have to get the citizens to see, NOT by your ringing words, but by the results of your policies, that your solutions are the right ones for the country.


how did the problems that the people need to see arise ?

----------


## pjohns

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I cannot exactly say that I "don't like [my] spot," since I could never find my name on the list.

Moreover, I am not quite sure why conservatism would be placed in the middle, rather than on the right...

----------


## fyrenza

> awe shucks, he learned some bad words.


He read Matelese and I too much!

At least I had the ballz to say BANNABLE words.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------

St James (04-09-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> Well, I cannot exactly say that I "don't like [my] spot," since I could never find my name on the list.
> 
> Moreover, I am not quite sure why conservatism would be placed in the middle, rather than on the right...


What would be the vertical translation of an horizontal plane?
(real question)

Would "right/conservatism" be highest, or lowest?

----------


## protectionist

Rather than statist or non statist , what matters is the kind of state.  That of a benevolent dictator might be better than a democratic republic where representitives represent only greedy special interests.  Then you have states that could be democracies, but the people are too dumb to make anything go right.  Worst possible case ?  An Islamic loonocracy.

----------


## fyrenza

What you're saying is that it _could_ be "right" for someone that fed, clothed and didn't torture you to death to be The Law of the Land that you in?

And whatever s/he thought was For the Good would be okay with you?

That it wouldn't be inalienable / self-evident human rights,

it would be what s/he SAID were your rights?

----------


## St James

actually, I've taken the swing test several times over the past five years and have consistently placed almost dead center for my political beliefs. You have misplaced me.
I am a Man of the Magna Carta. self rule, independent, and very confident about my practices and beliefs. I am a Natural Rights kind of fellow.

----------

Foghorn (04-09-2014)

----------


## Foghorn

I believe in gun rights, but I don't believe in putting a gun to the people's heads to force them into some social experiment.

Not a big fan of Fascism.

Not a big fan of liars and crooks.

But I am a big fan of the American people and feel you should leaves us the hell alone to make our own mistakes and sucesses.

----------


## Taylor

Im apparently ranked pretty high up there for whatever this is. Im guessing he learned enough about me to put me so high on the list based on my opinions on pot and sex?

I need coffee

----------


## Dos Equis

> If you believe in borders you are not a libertarian.


Call me what you will, I could care less if the official title libertarian does not fit me.

I believe in property rights.   Property rights require borders.

I also disdain collectivism.  To me, no borders sounds like a one world government of sorts.  You can't enforce no borders unless such a world order exists.

----------

Mordent (04-09-2014),pjohns (04-11-2014),wist43 (04-09-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> Im apparently ranked pretty high up there for whatever this is. Im guessing he learned enough about me to put me so high on the list based on my opinions on pot and sex?
> 
> I need coffee


Well then, how about giving us some insight as to your views in politics.  What do you like and dislike about our present day government?

Keep in mind that the top spot on the list is at stake.

----------


## Dos Equis

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
> 
> In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4]
> 
> The term was coined by anti-statists as a reference to non-anti-statist, or "statists". The least you could do is allow us to define our own terms.


Statists look to "fix" the never ending problems within society by having a centralized government take care of it.  This leads to a never expanding central government, which is what we have today.

----------


## Libhater

> Well, I cannot exactly say that I "don't like [my] spot," since I could never find my name on the list.
> 
> Moreover, I am not quite sure why conservatism would be placed in the middle, rather than on the right...



Perhaps its because I don't post here much, but my political sway puts me much further to the 'RIGHT' then Attila the Hun. So
I would appreciate it very much if you could adjust those rankings a wee bit by putting me at the bottom of that list. Anything
less than that would be a huge insult.

----------


## Old Navy

> The Ax Man gets to determine what the constitution means, so he gets to determine whether or not you are a conservative.
> 
> Didn't you know that?!?!


And here I thought that was my choice.....silly me!

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-09-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You disagree with them, and don't believe that they're pretty self-evident?
> 
> #1)  You think a society that does allow fraud and the initiation of force would be pleasant?
> 
> Is it that you do agree with the first part, but not the second?
> 
> You ask for proofs, without even thinking about them,
> depending upon someone else to do the grunt work,
> and if the citations are too long,
> ...



Yes, you catch on quickly.

I'm not making the argument. He is. I'm waiting for him to offer proof that his assumptions are actually true.

Who said that I didn't think about them? You? Did you think about my reply for a moment? Who is making the argument? Who has made claims without a shred of supporting evidence or explanation?


If he cannot explain his proof himself and in a timely manner, then his argument is weak.

Because he is making the argument. 


I only needed a short time to see the numerous flaws in his argument. Do you see him here giving us his proofs?

----------


## DonGlock26

> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/9330-All-you-need-to-know?p=273628&viewfull=1#post273628


I'm asking YOU to state your proof for your statements. YOU provide part of a blog? That is unacceptable. YOU cannot prove your arguments in this thread by yourself? 

YOU brought a bunch of the regulars here and bail out when questioned? Epic fail.

----------


## DonGlock26

> they are less able than governments to promote, strengthen and institutionalize them.


The answer is NO.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
> 
> In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4]
> 
> The term was coined by anti-statists as a reference to non-anti-statist, or "statists". *The least you could do is allow us to define our own terms.*


ROFL!  So it's my fault?  That's really rich, dude. 

Okay, what is your definition of statist?  You throw the term around all the time.  Are you saying the Merriam-Webster one is wrong?  Let's see you define the very term you throw at people who are not anarchists.

----------


## liberal_hack

> Michigan?  #3?
> 
> It's that defective liberal gene at work, isn't it?


I didn't say Detroit

----------


## liberal_hack

> Did I misspell statists?


this is the Pub, isn't it?

----------


## liberal_hack

> Im apparently ranked pretty high up there for whatever this is. Im guessing he learned enough about me to put me so high on the list based on my opinions on *pot and sex*?
> 
> I need coffee


I've tried it there but a counter, floor or bed is more comfortable

----------


## Reverend_Hellh0und

This is "The best" you "could do"? 

My heart aches for you bro.  :Wink: 


As I said, and you ignored in the other thread:




That's silly bro. 


I believe that the governments only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted. 

Government is arrogant, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. Because of the inherent nature of government, government entitlements and programs almost always fail to do what they were supposed to, expanding such government power to do what one thinks it should ensures that future politicians will use it in ways you think that they should not.


So, by nature, the government should exist, but in an extremely restricted fashion. 



How statist of me. /facepalm

----------

Mordent (04-09-2014)

----------


## sparsely

> This is "The best" you "could do"? 
> 
> My heart aches for you bro. 
> 
> 
> As I said, and you ignored in the other thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood. You're near the bottom of the list...as in least statist.

----------

Reverend_Hellh0und (04-09-2014)

----------


## Reverend_Hellh0und

> I think you misunderstood. You're near the bottom of the list...as in least statist.




lol maybe. I didn't care enough to actually pay attention.  :Wink:

----------


## Jim Scott

When political conservatives are equated with progressives on a chart of alleged 'statists' (favoring centralized government) it tells us the 'rankings' are simply a clumsy game of semantics, biased beyond all credibility to fit a narrow definition of the posters preferred political ideology.  However, the absurdity of the exercise does offer a few laughs, so there is that.   :Smiley20: 

*Jim*

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-09-2014),Coolwalker (04-09-2014),DonGlock26 (04-09-2014),Sheldonna (04-09-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Im apparently ranked pretty high up there for whatever this is. Im guessing he learned enough about me to put me so high on the list based on my opinions on pot and sex?
> 
> I need coffee





> Well then, how about giving us some insight as to your views in politics.  What do you like and dislike about our present day government?
> 
> Keep in mind that the top spot on the list is at stake.


Unfortunately Tay doesn't understand even the basics of governmental systems. I asked her to explain the difference between republics and democracies - a very basic civics question for anyone who lives in a republic - she didn't even understand the question.

I suppose it wouldn't matter if such ignorant people could admit they were ignorant and refrained from participating in elections - but of course they have been pumped full of self esteem every day of their precious lives, and couldn't possibly be ignorant of anything, could they??

In the end, ignorant people who do vote, have to be considered statists even if they don't realize it, or understand why. They have to be considered statists b/c they are invariably easy to manipulate into accepting statist solutions to statist created problems.

It's sad, but Tay represents the norm amoung young people today. She might be a nice kid for all I know, but en masse ignorance is dangerous - very dangerous.

----------


## wist43

> When political conservatives are equated with progressives on a chart of alleged 'statists' (favoring centralized government) it tells us the 'rankings' are simply a clumsy game of semantics, biased beyond all credibility to fit a narrow definition of the posters preferred political ideology.  However, the absurdity of the exercise does offer a few laughs, so there is that.  
> 
> *Jim*


When I came across this thread, and gave it some thought as to who might actually be a conservative by my old timey understanding of the term - it was you who came to mind.

I appreciate your fairly well thought out positions; but Jim, you accepted the Patriot Act out of the gate - no truly informed citizen accepted TPA. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how statists work, and the machinations of statists to manipulate societies into chains.

When I worked in the freedom fight, I gave more speeches to more conservative groups than I can recall - back in the day, I couldn't imagine any conservative being so gullible as to accept something as transparent as TPA in response to a terrorist attack. The entire point of a terrorist attack is the supposedly justified response of the government, i.e. a response that curtails the civil liberties of the citizenry and expands governmental power.

To your credit, you said you backed away from supporting TPA, but the fact remains you were duped to begin with - and now we're stuck with that government truncheon forever.

I've asked several nincompoops who call themselves conservatives on this forum to explain their understanding of the _necessary and proper clause._ Not one of them has been able to give an answer - they haven't even tried to give an answer. Truth be told, they need not give an answer, b/c their advocacy for various statist abuses of power is evidence of their support for the progressive interpretation. The progressive interpretation is, of course, the statist interpretation.

Care to take a swing at the _necessary and proper clause_??

----------


## DonGlock26

> When political conservatives are equated with progressives on a chart of alleged 'statists' (favoring centralized government) it tells us the 'rankings' are simply a clumsy game of semantics, biased beyond all credibility to fit a narrow definition of the posters preferred political ideology.  However, the absurdity of the exercise does offer a few laughs, so there is that.  
> 
> *Jim*


I suspect that an anarchist being arrested by the FBI would be yelling very loudly about their "constitutional rights" established by a constitutional convention of the states.

----------

pjohns (04-11-2014)

----------


## Coolwalker

> Im apparently ranked pretty high up there for whatever this is. Im guessing he learned enough about me to put me so high on the list based on my opinions on pot and sex?
> 
> I need coffee


 Ha... :Smiley ROFLMAO: , honey, being up there as you put it, isn't really a good thing. But then his degree in Political science came from...now where was it?

----------


## Mordent

> I think you misunderstood. You're near the bottom of the list...as in least statist.


Shit, you're both lower than me. I must be doing something wrong.

----------

sparsely (04-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> When political conservatives are equated with progressives on a chart of alleged 'statists' (favoring centralized government) it tells us the 'rankings' are simply a clumsy game of semantics, biased beyond all credibility to fit a narrow definition of the posters preferred political ideology.  However, the absurdity of the exercise does offer a few laughs, so there is that.  
> 
> *Jim*


Agreed.  It's a matter of considering the source; those who feel any form of government, be it organizing a mail system or a self-defense force, means they are "statist".

----------

pjohns (04-11-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


WHAT!!!!

You took me off the top of your dumbass list?!?!?!

Put me back on top AT ONCE!!!! Pronto!!!!  :Angry20:

----------


## wist43

> I suspect that an anarchist being arrested by the FBI would be yelling very loudly about their "constitutional rights" established by a constitutional convention of the states.


Okay Don, I'll give you a shot at the $64K question.

The logical foundation to the question is this -

People who are calling themselves "conservatives" say they believe in the precepts of republican government, i.e. that government should be restricted by the rule of law.

These same conservatives walk around with a hard on at the thought of smashing in the skulls of drug users. They cheer with glee as the DEA smashes in doors, shoots dogs, confiscates property, grabs the wife by the hair and throws her to the ground, and then shoots her husband b/c he didn't raise his hands high enough.

The DEA, along with the EPA, FDA, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management... the list of government agencies is endless - they make law on their own. They simply make shit up and call them "rules and regulations". These rules and regulations have the force of law. The net result is that unelected bureaucrats are making law, and are not subject to recall by the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong here - but don't "conservatives" prattle on endlessly about the abuses of government overreach?? What do they use for argument against such overreach?? Certainly not the Constitution.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So the question is this -

How do you interpret the _necessary and proper clause??_ The N&P is the supposed authority by which the FedGov claims the power to wage "the war on drugs", is it not??

The follow up question and argument has to be this -

If you accept that the FedGov does have the authority to wage the war on drugs, doesn't that negate your ability to fight the progressive agenda as it is being implemented agency by agency, by the special interest activists that populate those agencies??

Furthermore, does it not also make moot conservative's argument when they say they are for the rule of law, and that government should be limited?? Afterall, if the government can do anything it wants b/c it deems it "_necessary and proper_" - is that not advocating not limited government, but limitless government??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the same arguments that took place in the early years of our country's founding. James Madison himself, and many of the other founders made the same argument that I am making - and it is exactly the opposite of what conservatives accept today.

Can you follow this logic?? Are any "conservatives" capable of following this logic - or has "conservativism" gone so far off the rails, that logic and the principles of freedom are never again to be considered??

----------



----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Don Glock and Nixon are at the top of the list, Ha-ha!! Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Yup, two real socialists there, huh? :Geez:

----------

DonGlock26 (04-09-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

I think you have us confused with another board.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (04-09-2014),Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I think you have us confused with another board.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## wist43

> Don Glock and Nixon are at the top of the list, Ha-ha!! Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
> 
> Yup, two real socialists there, huh?


Dude, you can't even answer a simple question about the _necessary and proper clause_, lol... how dumb is that??

I've now asked -

Ghost
Dan40
IC (who apparently took his ball and went home)
RMNixon
JustPassinThru
DonGlock26
Jim Scott

- for their explaination of the _necessary and proper clause_. 

And the only thing I've gotten has been childish obfuscation, dodged the question, throw backs, and kicking up gorilla dust.

I've only recently posed the question to Don and Jim - so maybe there is still some hope that someone who wears the "conservative" label can show some honesty and the ability to think logically.

Not holding my breath though.

----------


## wist43

Can no "conservative" give an informed opinion on the _necessary and proper clause??_

Are you all afraid you'll have to admit that b/c you want your "war on drugs", you have to accept the progressive interpretation of the clause??

And b/c you have to accept the progressive interpretation, you have to admit that you really do not subscribe to the principle of limited government, but rather you subscribe to the craziness of limitless government??

Stand up and be counted boys.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Dude, you can't even answer a simple question about the _necessary and proper clause_, lol... how dumb is that??
> 
> I've now asked -
> 
> Ghost
> Dan40
> IC (who apparently took his ball and went home)
> RMNixon
> JustPassinThru
> ...


Isn't it that clause that was used in an early case to establish a national bank, early in the 19th century? I think it was a huge ruling by Justice Marshall in its favour, but I'll have to look up its particulars.

What do you want to know about it? Whether I agree with it?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

It's there, in the constitution, you can't change it except by amendment. 

What's your problem with it?

----------


## wist43

> Isn't it that clause that was used in an early case to establish a national bank, early in the 19th century? I think it was a huge ruling by Justice Marshall in its favour, but I'll have to look up its particulars.
> 
> What do you want to know about it? Whether I agree with it?





> It's there, in the constitution, you can't change it except by amendment. 
> 
> What's your problem with it?


lol... are you competing with Dan40 for King of the Obtuse??

You know full well what we've been arguing about!!

You want the FedGov to wage "the war on drugs"; to do so, you have to accept the open-ended, progressive interpretation of that clause - which opens up the flood gates for limitless government.

For some reason, you can't seem to bring yourself to admit this. We've been at this for days now, and I've asked you to justify your "war on drugs" with the constitutional authority - so, for the 9,000th time, let's hear it??

----------


## Maximatic

> WHAT!!!!
> 
> You took me off the top of your dumbass list?!?!?!
> 
> Put me back on top AT ONCE!!!! Pronto!!!!


Nocando. Edits are only possible within three hours of posting. It's written in stone now.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> lol... are you competing with Dan40 for King of the Obtuse??
> 
> You know full well what we've been arguing about!!
> 
> You want the FedGov to wage "the war on drugs"; to do so, you have to accept the open-ended, progressive interpretation of that clause - which opens up the flood gates for limitless government.
> 
> For some reason, you can't seem to bring yourself to admit this. We've been at this for days now, and I've asked you to justify your "war on drugs" with the constitutional authority - so, for the 9,000th time, let's hear it??


Since Justice Marshall was smarter than BOTH of us, let me show you what he said about it:

*We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are  limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the  sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national  legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the  powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable  that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most  beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within  the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,  which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but  consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are  constitutional.*

PERFECT! THAT'S why you have a Supreme Court. To determine if things like 'the war on drugs' are constitutional or not. Marshall provides an excellent touchstone for that, one that the justices no doubt carefully consult, the best of 'em, anyhow. It's not for you or I to determine, it's for the SCOTUS to determine, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE BODY FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

Not you...
Not The Ax Man..
Not Hoyty-Toyty...

THE SCOTUS!!!

----------


## lostbeyond

> An inch away from what?


An ancient Rome style presidential dictatory.  In fact the Cheney-Bush presidency has already demonstrated such indifference to all systems of US government and statehood, that this is not surprising now.  For example, at least at one occasion, Bush signed legislations into law, after a lobbyist simply put it into his desk in-tray.  And none of the then omnipotent all-hegemonic republicans in the White House and in Congress even mentioned that by the Constitution, it is the Congress that is the legislative branch, not the President.  

So, if laws are enacted unilaterally by a single entity President, without checks and balances, as it has happened at least in this case but also in many more, then how stupid are republicans now, that they are suddenly turning around and crying for the Constitution?  HEHEHEHEHE

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> actually, I've taken the swing test several times over the past five years and have consistently placed almost dead center for my political beliefs. You have misplaced me.
> I am a Man of the Magna Carta. self rule, independent, and very confident about my practices and beliefs. I am a Natural Rights kind of fellow.


Okay, this doesn't tell me very much. I don't know what swing test you're talking about. When you say you place center, it makes me think I put you too far to the right of this one, but I don't know how left and right are defined one the test you're talking about. Then you say self rule, independent, and natural rights guy, you say the same things I say about myself, and I think you would place yourself farther toward the right.
I'm totally confused now. Where would you put yourself on this spectrum?

----------


## wist43

> Since Justice Marshall was smarter than BOTH of us, let me show you what he said about it:
> 
> *We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are  limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the  sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national  legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the  powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable  that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most  beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within  the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,  which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but  consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are  constitutional.*
> 
> PERFECT! THAT'S why you have a Supreme Court. To determine if things like 'the war on drugs' are constitutional or not. Marshall provides an excellent touchstone for that, one that the justices no doubt carefully consult, the best of 'em, anyhow. It's not for you or I to determine, it's for the SCOTUS to determine, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE BODY FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
> 
> Not you...
> Not The Ax Man..
> Not Hoyty-Toyty...
> ...


Good freaking GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you even read that??????????????????????????????????????????????  ???????????????????

He is saying exactly what I've been saying, and what James Wilson, author of the clause, said, and how the clause had been interpreted for approx. the first 120 years of the Republic.

*"... let it be within the scope of the Constitution... consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution"*

If it's not in the Constitution - YOU CAN'T BLOODY DO IT!!! GET IT???!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not, NOT, how progressives interpret the clause - and it is the progressive interpretation that gives power to the DEA and "the war on drugs".

If you do not agree with the progressive interpretation, then I want to hear where else you are finding the constitutional authority to wage your beloved "war on drugs"??

This is really not that complicated a question - yet it seems so far beyond you "conservatives" that you are making complete fools of yourselves trying to avoid making fools of yourselves!!!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Okay, this doesn't tell me very much. I don't know what swing test you're talking about. When you say you place center, it makes me think I put you too far to the right of this one, but I don't know how left and right are defined one the test you're talking about. Then you say self rule, independent, and natural rights guy, you say the same things I say about myself, and I think you would place yourself farther toward the right.
> I'm totally confused now. *Where would you put yourself on this spectrum?*


First, one has to accept the validity of the spectrum.

How many on that list whom you believe exert "no force" would deny a woman the right to abort a baby even if it were due to rape or malformed? Deny some people rights simply because of a different religion, race or sexual/gender preference?  Anti-immigrant? Anti-drug?

----------


## michaelr

> We're not using your chart.


What's the matter, you and Ghost ain't tied for top position?

----------


## Maximatic

> An ancient Rome style presidential dictatory.  In fact the Cheney-Bush presidency has already demonstrated such indifference to all systems of US government and statehood, that this is not surprising now.  For example, at least at one occasion, Bush signed legislations into law, after a lobbyist simply put it into his desk in-tray.  And none of the then omnipotent all-hegemonic republicans in the White House and in Congress even mentioned that by the Constitution, it is the Congress that is the legislative branch, not the President.  
> 
> So, if laws are enacted unilaterally by a single entity President, without checks and balances, as it has happened at least in this case but also in many more, then how stupid are republicans now, that they are suddenly turning around and crying for the Constitution?  HEHEHEHEHE


Oh. That's normal. It's like a football game. When there's a dispute over a call, if the call is against your team, the ref is a blind retard even if you clearly saw the infraction yourself.

The Democrat-Republican teams don't get treated with any special objectivity just because they decide matters of life and death. To the fans, it's it's just another game, and the "issues" are just abstractions in the ether that never really hit home. Elections are the only time otherwise sane people take slogans like "a car in every pot and a chicken in every driveway" to actually mean something.

----------

lostbeyond (04-10-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> How many on that list whom you believe exert "no force" would deny a woman the right to abort a baby even if it were due to rape or malformed? Deny some people rights simply because of a different religion, race or sexual/gender preference?  Anti-immigrant? Anti-drug?


What?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Good freaking GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Did you even read that??????????????????????????????????????????????  ???????????????????
> 
> He is saying exactly what I've been saying, and what James Wilson, author of the clause, said, and how the clause had been interpreted for approx. the first 120 years of the Republic.
> 
> *"... let it be within the scope of the Constitution... consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution"*
> 
> If it's not in the Constitution - YOU CAN'T BLOODY DO IT!!! GET IT???!!!
> ...


THAT'S why there's a Supreme Court: TO DETERMINE if a particular piece of legislation or executive government action stands up to constitutional scrutiny.

Obviously, progressives believe that their favourite programs are fully endorsed by the constitution and fully in harmony with it. THAT'S why it's so important to fill the courts with strict constructionists. To do that you need Republicans in power in the presidency and the senate for a long time. 

You can't get around that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What?


If you don't understand the question, you might want to reflect on your "spectrum" and it's consequences vis–à–vis your list.

----------


## Maximatic

> Well, I cannot exactly say that I "don't like [my] spot," since I could never find my name on the list.
> 
> Moreover, I am not quite sure why conservatism would be placed in the middle, rather than on the right...


Because defining the spectrum like that leaves no place for half of the possible stances. Conservatism is not well defined, neither is liberalism. Liberalism had a clear definition at one time, but its meaning in the US has become some nebulous sudo-understanding of the opposite of that, now obsolete, but clear definition. If you offer definitions of the terms, you may come up with a two dimensional grid, with conservatism at an end, that makes some kind of sense. With a spectrum, though, it's easy to make sense of one that is defined by what you believe to be the proper role of government. That's what this is.

You're not on here because I wasn't able to guess where to place you.

----------


## wist43

> THAT'S why there's a Supreme Court: TO DETERMINE if a particular piece of legislation or executive government action stands up to constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Obviously, progressives believe that their favourite programs are fully endorsed by the constitution and fully in harmony with it. THAT'S why it's so important to fill the courts with strict constructionists. To do that you need Republicans in power in the presidency and the senate for a long time. 
> 
> You can't get around that.


Ghost - the point is, "conservatives' now accept the progressive interpretation - which affords limitless government. As I've pointed out to you many times, your beloved "war on drugs" is not constitutional - unless you accept the progressive interpretation of the _necessary and proper clause._

What good is it going to do to elect "Republicans", if they are willing to accept progressive interpretations of the Constitution??

If you believe Marshall's interpretation to be correct, then the _necessary and proper clause_ is out as constitutional justification for your beloved "war on drugs". Yet you persist in cheering the _"war on drugs"_ on...

So that moves us along to the next logical step -

1) you agree with Marshall's interpretation of the _necessary and proper_ clause - hence it cannot be used to justify your "war on drugs"

2) you still argue that the war on drugs is constitutional

So, those 2 positions lead to question #3

3) where do you get the Constitutional authority to wage your "war on drugs"??

----------


## Maximatic

> This is "The best" you "could do"? 
> 
> My heart aches for you bro. 
> 
> As I said, and you ignored in the other thread:
> 
> That's silly bro. 
> 
> I believe that the governments only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted. 
> ...


What are you talking about? I didn't ignore anything you said. I understood what you said about the role of government. I don't know why you think I placed you as a statist. I put you very close to the bottom of the list, the anti-statist end.

----------


## wist43

> This is "The best" you "could do"? 
> 
> My heart aches for you bro. 
> 
> 
> As I said, and you ignored in the other thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Being on the top of that list is not a good thing... you're right next to me - can't get much better than that bro  :Wink:

----------


## Maximatic

> When political conservatives are equated with progressives on a chart of alleged 'statists' (favoring centralized government) it tells us the 'rankings' are simply a clumsy game of semantics, biased beyond all credibility to fit a narrow definition of the posters preferred political ideology.  However, the absurdity of the exercise does offer a few laughs, so there is that.  
> *Jim*


It's true, though. Conservatives do not show that they oppose the size and scope of the federal government, only that they want its power used in ways that differ from how their opponents would have it used only in quality, not quantity.

The reason you end up so close to other progressives is that way I've defined the spectrum yields a much wider band than definitions whereby American liberals and conservatives would place far apart.

If this is something that is so obviously false, then show it. Explain how conservatives prefer a role for their central government that is is smaller than the role liberals would have for it.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> It's true, though. Conservatives do not show that they oppose the size and scope of the federal government, only that they want its power used in ways that differ from how their opponents would have it used only in quality, not quantity.
> 
> The reason you end up so close to other progressives is that way I've defined the spectrum yields a much wider band than definitions whereby American liberals and conservatives would place far apart.
> 
> If this is something that is so obviously false, then show it. Explain how conservatives prefer a role for their central government that is is smaller than the role liberals would have for it.


Conservatives want to do LESS through government, so obviously conservatives want smaller government, but for what we believe government SHOULD be doing, and should be doing well and efficiently, we want it the RIGHT size, not size 'zero'.

----------

Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> If you don't understand the question, you might want to reflect on your "spectrum" and it's consequences vis–à–vis your list.


There are not any on the list that I "believe exert "no force"".

This question




> How many on that list whom you believe exert "no force" would deny a  woman the right to abort a baby even if it were due to rape or  malformed?


does not make any sense.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Ghost - the point is, "conservatives' now accept the progressive interpretation - which affords limitless government. As I've pointed out to you many times, your beloved "war on drugs" is not constitutional - unless you accept the progressive interpretation of the _necessary and proper clause._
> 
> What good is it going to do to elect "Republicans", if they are willing to accept progressive interpretations of the Constitution??
> 
> If you believe Marshall's interpretation to be correct, then the _necessary and proper clause_ is out as constitutional justification for your beloved "war on drugs". Yet you persist in cheering the _"war on drugs"_ on...
> 
> So that moves us along to the next logical step -
> 
> 1) you agree with Marshall's interpretation of the _necessary and proper_ clause - hence it cannot be used to justify your "war on drugs"
> ...


Forget the stupid red-flag-for-libertarians catch phrase 'war on drugs'.

Question: Are most recreational drugs illegal?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Does the federal government have the constitutionally mandated obligation to suppress the illegal drug trade and bring those involved in it to justice?

Answer: Of course it does!

So I don't see your problem. 'War on Drugs', like all other 'war on....' policies is merely a rhetorical device. 

What you REALLY mean is that you don't think the government has a right to suppress illegal and harmful activities. 

THAT is clearly, _CLEARLY_ a ridiculous, lunatic-fringe belief, and Justice Marshall would kick your ass for even THINKING it.

----------

Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Conservatives want to do LESS through government, so obviously conservatives want smaller government, but for what we believe government SHOULD be doing, and should be doing well and efficiently, we want it the RIGHT size, not size 'zero'.


Can you explain the sense in which conservatives want less done through government than your liberal counterparts?

----------


## Dan40

> Good freaking GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Did you even read that??????????????????????????????????????????????  ???????????????????
> 
> He is saying exactly what I've been saying, and what James Wilson, author of the clause, said, and how the clause had been interpreted for approx. the first 120 years of the Republic.
> 
> *"... let it be within the scope of the Constitution... consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution"*
> 
> *[NOT part of the US Constitution!]
> ...




This IS in the Constitution.

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

And it can be interpreted to mean as things change, the necessary and proper changes need to be made as well.

This is also IN the Constitution:

*"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution"*

*That is a very broad PART of the Constitution.*

RE: James Wilson.

_"At Pennsylvania's ratification convention, James Wilson, the author of the clause, explained that the words "necessary and proper" are "limited, and defined by the following, for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.'"_

*NOT ONE WORD OF THAT STATEMENT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
*
No matter if he and he alone wrote the necessary and proper clause.  _Only that clause and NOT his LATER interpretation of it_, IS in the Constitution.

So all of you that wish to debate what is and what is not in the Constitution, shoot yourselves in the foot by quoting statements *NOT* in the Constitution.

You may WANT such statements in.  Maybe such statements SHOULD be in the Constitution, *but they are not.
*
_The necessary and proper clause is extremely broad and extremely vague.
_
The Founding Fathers were great men.  NOT PERFECT, but great men.

Does a broad clause like the necessary and proper clause allow for the possibility of the government passing laws to protect idiots from their own self inflicted idiocy?  Yes it does.  Can that be abused?  Of course it can.  But it is in the Constitution and thus "the law of the land."

Explanations of any clause of the Constitution ARE NOT in the Constitution and thus are NOT the law of the land, unless found to be by the SCOTUS.

Like it or hate it, there it is.

----------


## Reverend_Hellh0und

> Being on the top of that list is not a good thing... you're right next to me - can't get much better than that bro




I admit to skiming the post. Dudes making lists on the internet isn't my thing.

----------


## Maximatic

> Okay Don, I'll give you a shot at the $64K question.
> 
> The logical foundation to the question is this -
> 
> People who are calling themselves "conservatives" say they believe in the precepts of republican government, i.e. that government should be restricted by the rule of law.
> 
> These same conservatives walk around with a hard on at the thought of smashing in the skulls of drug users. They cheer with glee as the DEA smashes in doors, shoots dogs, confiscates property, grabs the wife by the hair and throws her to the ground, and then shoots her husband b/c he didn't raise his hands high enough.
> 
> The DEA, along with the EPA, FDA, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management... the list of government agencies is endless - they make law on their own. They simply make shit up and call them "rules and regulations". These rules and regulations have the force of law. The net result is that unelected bureaucrats are making law, and are not subject to recall by the people.
> ...


Since the necessary and proper clause calls back to the forgoing powers wouldn't any defense of anything by it also rely on a liberal interpretation of some other part of section 8?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Okay Don, I'll give you a shot at the $64K question.
> 
> The logical foundation to the question is this -
> 
> People who are calling themselves "conservatives" say they believe in the precepts of republican government, i.e. that government should be restricted by the rule of law.
> 
> These same conservatives walk around with a hard on at the thought of smashing in the skulls of drug users. They cheer with glee as the DEA smashes in doors, shoots dogs, confiscates property, grabs the wife by the hair and throws her to the ground, and then shoots her husband b/c he didn't raise his hands high enough.
> 
> The DEA, along with the EPA, FDA, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management... the list of government agencies is endless - they make law on their own. They simply make shit up and call them "rules and regulations". These rules and regulations have the force of law. The net result is that unelected bureaucrats are making law, and are not subject to recall by the people.
> ...


Emotional hyperbole aside, I would caution you not to make absolute statements about conservatives. 

The N&P is not the real problem. The extra-constitutional assumption of the power of judicial review by the SCOTUS and their subsequent overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause is the root cause of the explosion of the federal govt. The federal govt also put the states under the federal yoke after the civil war via the constitutional amendment process. 

I'm against all that, yet I am very conservative. I would have a small federal govt and their concern with dangerous drugs would be at the national border. I would leave the policing of the states to the individual states AND I would not bind the to the US constitution, since that was not the purpose of the constitution. 

Are you progressive in that you want the states held to the standards of the US constitution's bill of rights?

----------


## wist43

> Forget the stupid red-flag-for-libertarians catch phrase 'war on drugs'.
> 
> Question: Are most recreational drugs illegal?
> 
> Answer: Yes.
> 
> Question:* Does the federal government have the constitutionally mandated obligation to suppress the illegal drug trade* and bring those involved in it to justice?
> 
> Answer: *Of course it does*!


I've been asking you for weeks now to provide the power granting clause of the Constitution that gets you to prohibition.

We finally were able to dismiss the _necessary and proper clause_ - so, where then does the constitutional power come from??

You just say the FedGov has the "constitutionally mandated obligation to suppress the illegal drug trade" - what clause, what "enumerated power" gives the FedGov that "*constitutionally mandated*" power??  

Please cite it for me. 





> So I don't see your problem. 'War on Drugs', like all other 'war on....' policies is merely a rhetorical device.


The "war on drugs" is your terminology - you prefer "prohibition"?? I'm fine with that.  :Wink: 




> What you REALLY mean is that you don't think the government has a right to suppress illegal and harmful activities.


No, what _I really mean_ is - where does the FedGov get the authority/power to make them illegal to begin with??

As our Founding Fathers intended, and as is evident in the quote you provided from Marshall - if it aint in the Constitution, the FedGov doesn't have the authority or power to do it. Period.




> THAT is clearly, _CLEARLY_ a ridiculous, lunatic-fringe belief, and Justice Marshall would kick your ass for even THINKING it.


You are the one making argument contrary to the Constitution, what our Founding Fathers wrote volumes about, and what Marshall was talking about in the quote you posted.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, again... and laughably for 12,789,347th time - what clause of the Constitution gives the FedGov the power to engage in prohibition of anything??

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

The constitution does not forbid the drafting of federal laws and policies. 

Are you actually saying there's no such thing as federal law?!?! :Wtf20:

----------


## wist43

> Emotional hyperbole aside, I would caution you not to make absolute statements about conservatives. 
> 
> The N&P is not the real problem. The extra-constitutional assumption of the power of judicial review by the SCOTUS and their subsequent overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause is the root cause of the explosion of the federal govt. The federal govt also put the states under the federal yoke after the civil war via the constitutional amendment process. 
> 
> I'm against all that, yet I am very conservative. I would have a small federal govt and their concern with dangerous drugs would be at the national border. I would leave the policing of the states to the individual states AND I would not bind the to the US constitution, since that was not the purpose of the constitution.


Good googly moogly, we have a winner!!!

Finally, a constitutionalist!!!

Don, you are the first "conservative" on this forum to actually give a reasonable answer on the subject.

Although I agree with your contention that the problem is progressive interpretation, the _necessary and proper_ clause is problematic b/c it allows for wiggle room. No rational person would find ambiguity in it, but progressives/liberals are not rational or honest people. 

The Founding Fathers could not have dreamed of the levels of dishonesty and the lengths that future generations of dishonest men would go to find any means necessary to throw off the restrictive nature of the Constitution.




> Are you progressive in that you want the states held to the standards of the US constitution's bill of rights?


I am not progressive or liberal in anything - I agree with our Founding Fathers almost across the board. The vast majority of things fought over in the "liberal/conservative" food fight - have no place for argument on the federal level.

If someone wants to argue about them on the state level - let's have at it.

The "war on drugs" is a perfect example. Pure and simple, it is not a federal matter - if the citizens of a given state want to make it illegal, as long as it does not conflict with their own state constitution, they certainly have the right to do that. I would argue against most of it probably, but the bottom line is, it is an issue for the states.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-09-2014)

----------


## wist43

> The constitution does not forbid the drafting of federal laws and policies. 
> 
> Are you actually saying there's no such thing as federal law?!?!


Wow, lol... I don't know how much more simply I can put this Ghost??

You have to cite a specific "enumerated power" in order for the FedGov to make a law - any law!!!

If the Constitution does not grant power to the FedGov to do something - the FedGov cannot do it.

So again, for hundred billionth time - cite for me the specific "enumerated power" within the Constitution that gives the FedGov the authority to engage in prohibition??

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Wow, lol... I don't know how much more simply I can put this Ghost??
> 
> You have to cite a specific "enumerated power" in order for the FedGov to make a law - any law!!!
> 
> If the Constitution does not grant power to the FedGov to do something - the FedGov cannot do it.
> 
> So again, for hundred billionth time - cite for me the specific "enumerated power" within the Constitution that gives the FedGov the authority to engage in prohibition??


AND for the hundred billionth time...

Neither you nor I can answer that as neither of us are learned jurists and constitutional scholars. We can have an OPINION, based on amateur and superficial legal reasoning at best--more likely our desires and inclinations--but this is exactly the sort of thing the SCOTUS was meant to resolve.

I think it is eminiently constitutional. A federal government is supposed to protect the safety of every citizen within the purview of its writs from people, actions and substances that do them harm. Because it is not just the citizens of Virginia, Colorado or Idaho or any other states, but ALL the citizens equally that are affected adversely by illegal substances, only a federal law is able to deal with this adequately. 

But then again, that is just an amateur OPINION. I'm not a 'learned jurist'. I may or may not be wrong here.

Same goes for you.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Again, we must get down to reality here. 'Reality', you know....?

For as long as you, your children or your grandchildren and your great-grand-children live, there will NEVER again be a teeny-tiny federal government. 

The developments of a vast, powerful advanced technological state since the middle years of the 20th century have made that a thing of the past. 

Let's face it: an utterly laissez-faire society will be one in which vast numbers of people will suffer. Laissez-faire states barely outlived the 19th century, let alone the 20th. People will vote it down in overwhelming numbers again and again. The Great Depression ended it completely by the 30s.

So endless arguments over the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of this that or the other thing are increasingly dull intellectual exercises for people who have nothing better to do in their lives. There is simply no way, in the early 21st century, that the government is going to revert to the proportions of an agrarian, pre-industrial nation. Ain't gonna happen.

Why? 

Libertarians keep forgetting that the vast majority of people don't agree that society should be a 'get what you can and devil take the hindmost' kind of society. They will NEVER EVER vote for a return to that. It's pointless even dreaming about it, it's a waste of your time. Yes, libertarians, there are OTHER people in this world than YOU, and there are a lot MORE of them. 

So where does that leave us?

Well, you may never again have a government as small as it was in the 1790s, but you can still prune and cut and shrink and hold back a LOT. And it is a never-ending job, because it's true governments have an inherent tendency to grow, so conservative and libertarian-influenced governments will always be pruning back what has sprouted with luxuriance from more statist governments. 

Governments will always be much bigger than in the 18th and 19th century. Necessarily. But they needn't be allowed to overwhelm you.  SO much, so many entire cabinet positions and their attendant bureaucracies, can be deleted, and so many harmful and inhibiting regulations can be shit-canned, and so many taxes reduced and the tax code greatly simplified.

----------

Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> I think it is eminiently constitutional. A federal government is supposed to protect the safety of every citizen within the purview of its writs from people, actions and substances that do them harm. Because it is not just the citizens of Virginia, Colorado or Idaho or any other states, but ALL the citizens equally that are affected adversely by illegal substances, only a federal law is able to deal with this adequately.


You were asked to cite a constitutional provision to justify your opinion. Which provision are you imagining there?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You were asked to cite a constitutional provision to justify your opinion. Which provision are you imagining there?


Ax Man, is the FBI constitutional?

----------


## Calypso Jones

When @Jim Scott logs back in here, he is gonna beat you like a red-headed step-child.

----------


## Jim Scott

> Again, we must get down to reality here. 'Reality', you know....?
> 
> For as long as you, your children or your grandchildren and your great-grand-children live, there will NEVER again be a teeny-tiny federal government. 
> 
> The developments of a vast, powerful advanced technological state since the middle years of the 20th century have made that a thing of the past. 
> 
> Let's face it: an utterly laissez-faire society will be one in which vast numbers of people will suffer. Laissez-faire states barely outlived the 19th century, let alone the 20th. People will vote it down in overwhelming numbers again and again. The Great Depression ended it completely by the 30s.
> 
> So endless arguments over the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of this that or the other thing are increasingly dull intellectual exercises for people who have nothing better to do in their lives. There is simply no way, in the early 21st century, that the government is going to revert to the proportions of an agrarian, pre-industrial nation. Ain't gonna happen.
> ...


*Ghost* ~

Kudos for your cogent arguments against the libertarian-based condemnation of political conservatives as 'statists' that allegedly long to see the federal government expanded exponentially to serve some nefarious purpose.  

The libertarian-based 'strict constitutionalist' pose is tiresome because it triggers this kind of interminable argument over what is and is not constitutional, which, as you pointed out, is subjective to the reader and only legally interpreted  by the SCOTUS.  That 'progressives' have slanted the interpretation of the_ 'Necessary and Proper' clause_ (#18) is at the heart of the issue.  However, smug, self-serving ideologists, believing that most federal laws enacted much beyond, say 1800,  have been a plot to usurp our God-given freedoms is simply erecting criteria for being a constitutional conservative that most of the Founding Fathers probably couldn't pass.  It gets ridiculous.  I also find it a gigantic waste of time playing internet games of 'Who is the REAL conservative? with those who condescend to and mock life-long conservatives based on a unrealistic interpretation of the constitution that makes little sense in 2014 in a vast nation of over 300 million diverse people. 

Granted, the federal government is too big and far too intrusive.  We all can agree on that.  However, playing semantic games with self-anointed 'experts' in constitutionality and then being hectored by these internet political gamers that infest political boards is simply a waste of our time.  The nation is crumbling under the weight of federal 'entitlements' and other liberal concoctions while our society implodes from within.  The rest of the world looks at America and sees a distinct lack of leadership that encourages despots to take chances they wouldn't have taken just a decade ago. 

  Bickering over who is 'really' conservative as well as debating critical but otherwise obscure constitutional clauses seems to be an exercise in futility.  Let the self-anointed 'real' conservatives play their head games with others.  I would hope that we have better ways to spend our time on the internet, specifically on political sites.  We'll never pass their little tests or meet their criteria, only they can do that, you see.  That's the heart of the game.  Heads they win, tails we lose.  Most conservatives here know full well who we are, what we believe and why.  We don't require the approval of anonymous people posting political challenges on the internet for validation of our political ideology and it's manifestations.  That stated, I appreciate your many responses on this overlong thread.  They were not only well-argued but saved me a lot of typing.  :Smiley20: 

*Jim*

----------



----------


## wist43

> AND for the hundred billionth time...
> 
> Neither you nor I can answer that as neither of us are learned jurists and constitutional scholars. We can have an OPINION, based on amateur and superficial legal reasoning at best--more likely our desires and inclinations--but this is exactly the sort of thing the SCOTUS was meant to resolve.
> 
> I think it is eminiently constitutional. A federal government is supposed to protect the safety of every citizen within the purview of its writs from people, actions and substances that do them harm. Because it is not just the citizens of Virginia, Colorado or Idaho or any other states, but ALL the citizens equally that are affected adversely by illegal substances, only a federal law is able to deal with this adequately. 
> 
> But then again, that is just an amateur OPINION. I'm not a 'learned jurist'. I may or may not be wrong here.
> 
> Same goes for you.


Wow, just wow...

Well, I for one am very well read - and have an informed opinion that is rooted in the historical writings of our Founding Fathers, derived from the lessons of history with respect to previously failed governmental systems and societies.

 Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and gave us many volumes of writings to study and apply to the maintenance of our government. They expected citizens to be informed, and to understand the principles of liberty and republican government. I understand these things b/c I've studied them - it would seem that you have not studied them, and don't understand them.

 So we are back to the fact that you are an advocate of the progressive interpretations of the Constitution - but not b/c you agree with them, but b/c you don't understand them, and have complete blind faith that someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to administer her duties in a learned and honest way.

 Truly - WTF??

 I have to say, you are a species of citizen that Karl Marx and John Dewey could only have dreamed of.

You definitely deserve the top spot in the OP of this thread - but it would seem that you have no hope of understanding why.

----------

michaelr (04-09-2014)

----------


## wist43

> *Ghost* ~
> 
> Kudos for your cogent arguments against the libertarian-based condemnation of political conservatives as 'statists' that allegedly long to see the federal government expanded exponentially to serve some nefarious purpose.  
> 
> The libertarian-based 'strict constitutionalist' pose is tiresome because it triggers this kind of interminable argument over what is and is not constitutional, which, as you pointed out, is subjective to the reader and only legally interpreted  by the SCOTUS.  That 'progressives' have slanted the interpretation of the_ 'Necessary and Proper' clause_ (#18) is at the heart of the issue.  However, smug, self-serving ideologists, believing that most federal laws enacted much beyond, say 1800,  have been a plot to usurp our God-given freedoms is simply erecting criteria for being a constitutional conservative that most of the Founding Fathers probably couldn't pass.  It gets ridiculous.  I also find it a gigantic waste of time playing internet games of 'Who is the REAL conservative? with those who condescend to and mock life-long conservatives based on a unrealistic interpretation of the constitution that makes little sense in 2014 in a vast nation of over 300 million diverse people. 
> 
> Granted, the federal government is too big and far too intrusive.  We all can agree on that.  However, playing semantic games with self-anointed 'experts' in constitutionality and then being hectored by these internet political gamers that infest political boards is simply a waste of our time.  The nation is crumbling under the weight of federal 'entitlements' and other liberal concoctions while our society implodes from within.  The rest of the world looks at America and sees a distinct lack of leadership that encourages despots to take chances they wouldn't have taken just a decade ago. 
> 
>   Bickering over who is 'really' conservative as well as debating critical but otherwise obscure constitutional clauses seems to be an exercise in futility.  Let the self-anointed 'real' conservatives play their head games with others.  I would hope that we have better ways to spend our time on the internet, specifically on political sites.  We'll never pass their little tests or meet their criteria, only they can do that, you see.  That's the heart of the game.  Heads they win, tails we lose.  Most conservatives here know full well who we are, what we believe and why.  We don't require the approval of anonymous people posting political challenges on the internet for validation of our political ideology and it's manifestations.  That stated, I appreciate your many responses on this overlong thread.  They were not only well-argued but saved me a lot of typing. 
> ...


If you're not fighting to constrain your government by arguing constitutional principle - then what would you propose an advocate of limited, republican government use to constrain the government??

Either your government abides by the rule of law that was crafted to constrain it, or it doesn't. It certainly will never abide by any restrictions if left on autopilot and not actively constrained by informed and determined citizens.

The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance - it would seem you couldn't care less about the Constitution, the rule of law, or liberty... b/c the bottom line is,* liberty cannot survive without citizens fighting for the rule of law that constrains the government.*

----------


## wist43

> When @Jim Scott logs back in here, he is gonna beat you like a red-headed step-child.


Did you read his post?? 

What he wrote there is as ignorant as anything any liberal or progressive could dream up.

The bottom line is, he or Ghost, or Dan40, or any of these guys who fancy themselves enlightened above the rest of us - they won't discuss/debate/argue the Constitution b/c they don't understand it.

If I'm wrong about a given subject - it wouldn't really matter, b/c I don't want to use the power of government to impose my erroneous ideas upon someone else. Live and let live - but that isn't the mentality of these statists; liberals, progressives, Ghost, Jim, Tay, Dan40 et al... they're truly dangerous people b/c they see nothing wrong with imposing their will thru government force.

And therein lies the problem for people like myself, and Ax and michaelr and fyrenza... people who want to live in a free society - statists having no understanding of the principles of liberty, and at the same time seeing nothing wrong with imposing their will on others by force.

It doesn't matter if that force comes about by way of ignorance or deliberate intent - the gulag is the same.

----------


## Shoey

My political ideology can be determined with these famous words framed in The Declaration Of Independence:




> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.




They're three requirements to this political ideology/philosophy

1) One must comprehend the Constitutional definition of a Person.

2) A individual must comprehend the difference between The Inalienable Rights Of A Person and the freedom to execute those Inalienable Rights.

3) A individual must comprehend what an Inalienable Right is  and how they're determined.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

This is how Jim FEELS about libertarians:




> *Ghost* ~
> 
> Kudos for your cogent arguments against the libertarian-based condemnation of political conservatives as 'statists' that allegedly long to see the federal government expanded exponentially to serve some nefarious purpose.  
> 
> The libertarian-based 'strict constitutionalist' pose is tiresome because it triggers this kind of interminable argument over what is and is not constitutional, which, as you pointed out, is subjective to the reader and only legally interpreted  by the SCOTUS.  That 'progressives' have slanted the interpretation of the_ 'Necessary and Proper' clause_ (#18) is at the heart of the issue.  However, smug, self-serving ideologists, It gets ridiculous.  I also find it a gigantic waste of time playing internet games of 'Who is the REAL conservative? with those who condescend to and mock life-long conservatives based on a unrealistic interpretation of the constitution that makes little sense in 2014 in a vast nation of over 300 million diverse people. 
> 
> Granted, the federal government is too big and far too intrusive.  We all can agree on that.  However, playing semantic games with self-anointed 'experts' in constitutionality and then being hectored by these internet political gamers that infest political boards is simply a waste of our time.  The nation is crumbling under the weight of federal 'entitlements' and other liberal concoctions while our society implodes from within.  The rest of the world looks at America and sees a distinct lack of leadership that encourages despots to take chances they wouldn't have taken just a decade ago. 
> 
>   Bickering over who is 'really' conservative as well as debating critical but otherwise obscure constitutional clauses seems to be an exercise in futility.  Let the self-anointed 'real' conservatives play their head games with others.  I would hope that we have better ways to spend our time on the internet, specifically on political sites.  We'll never pass their little tests or meet their criteria, only they can do that, you see.  That's the heart of the game.  Heads they win, tails we lose.  Most conservatives here know full well who we are, what we believe and why.  We don't require the approval of anonymous people posting political challenges on the internet for validation of our political ideology and it's manifestations.  That stated, I appreciate your many responses on this overlong thread.  They were not only well-argued but saved me a lot of typing. 
> ...


This is Jim's contention:




> based on a unrealistic interpretation of the constitution  that makes little sense in 2014 in a vast nation of over 300 million  diverse people. 
> *Jim*


This is Jim's defense of Jim's contention:




> ________________________________________
> *Jim*


This is a question I have asked many times of conservatives on this forum:




> Most conservatives here know full well who we are, _what we  believe and why_.  
> *Jim*


But they never answer.

This is the smiley Jim adds to the end of his post in the hope that it will distract from the pointless empty insulting nature of his post:




> *Jim*


Post #213 is what Jim finds more important than engaging anyone who challenges his undefended positions. He prefers to just talk about such people.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

You know, there actually ARE sane, rational, classic libertarians out there, and they are probably the majority of that ideological group. Reverend Hellhound is one of them. It's just that the extremely vocal minority of extremist anarchists sometimes drowns out their voices.

----------


## Maximatic

> My political ideology can be determined with these famous words framed in The Declaration Of Independence:
> 
> 
> 
> They're three requirements to this political [/FONT]ideology/philosophy
> 
> 1) One must comprehend the Constitutional definition of a Person.
> 
> 2) A individual must comprehend the difference between The Inalienable Rights Of A Person and the freedom to execute those Inalienable Rights.
> ...


Oh good, a principled position. So, elaborate, what is the difference you refer to in 2?
How are inalienable rights determined?
What do you believe the Constitutional definition of a person?

----------


## DonGlock26

> You were asked to cite a constitutional provision to justify your opinion. Which provision are you imagining there?


I'm waiting for you to provide your proofs for your arguments in your own words in this thread. 

Please, no cut and pastes from other threads and no long-winded nonsensical dodges. Just explain how the points are true.

----------


## Maximatic

> I'm waiting for you to provide your proofs for your arguments in your own words in this thread. 
> 
> Please, no cut and pastes from other threads and no long-winded nonsensical dodges.


I'm waiting for you to stop tailoring your questions so as to preclude the answers you've already been given.




> Just explain how the points are true.


Care to quantify your word count limit?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm waiting for you to stop tailoring your questions so as to preclude the answers you've already been given.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to quantify your word count limit?


You provided a link to your argument. I posted it here and asked for your proofs. So far, you haven't given us any in this thread. 

Just tell us why they are true without cutting and pasting. If you have such a great philosophy and such a strong argument for it, then you should easily be able to tell us why they are all true.

If you can't summarize why each point is true in a few sentences each, then your argument is garbage. Clear enough?

----------


## Maximatic

> You provided a link to your argument. I posted it here and asked for your proofs. So far, you haven't given us any in this thread. 
> 
> Just tell us why they are true without cutting and pasting. If you have such a great philosophy and such a strong argument for it, then you should easily be able to tell us why they are all true.


I posted that argument last year. If you want to engage it, engage it where it is.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I posted that argument last year. If you want to engage it, engage it where it is.


You called us all here. You labeled some as statists. Here we are. Now is the time to defend this argument of yours or fail.

If you fail to back it up now, your argument is the joke of the forum.

----------


## Dan40

> Since the necessary and proper clause calls back to the forgoing powers wouldn't any defense of anything by it also rely on a liberal interpretation of some other part of section 8?


This IS in the Constitution.

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

And it can be interpreted to mean as things change, the necessary and proper changes need to be made as well.

This is also IN the Constitution:

*"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution"*

*That is a very broad PART of the Constitution.*

RE: James Wilson.

_"At Pennsylvania's ratification convention, James Wilson, the author  of the clause, explained that the words "necessary and proper" are  "limited, and defined by the following, for carrying into execution the  foregoing powers.'"_

*NOT ONE WORD OF THAT STATEMENT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
*
No matter if he and he alone wrote the necessary and proper clause.  _Only that clause and NOT his LATER interpretation of it_, IS in the Constitution.

So all of you that wish to debate what is and what is not in the  Constitution, shoot yourselves in the foot by quoting statements *NOT* in the Constitution.

You may WANT such statements in.  Maybe such statements SHOULD be in the Constitution, *but they are not.
*
_The necessary and proper clause is extremely broad and extremely vague.
_
The Founding Fathers were great men.  NOT PERFECT, but great men.

Does a broad clause like the necessary and proper clause allow for the  possibility of the government passing laws to protect idiots from their  own self inflicted idiocy?  Yes it does.  Can that be abused?  Of course  it can.  But it is in the Constitution and thus "the law of the land."

Explanations of any clause of the Constitution ARE NOT in the  Constitution and thus are NOT the law of the land, unless found to be by  the SCOTUS.

Like it or hate it, there it is.

----------


## wist43

> You know, there actually ARE sane, rational, classic libertarians out there, and they are probably the majority of that ideological group. Reverend Hellhound is one of them. It's just that the extremely vocal minority of extremist anarchists sometimes drowns out their voices.


Do you realize what you've just said is straight out of the liberal playbook for disparaging and smearing "conservatives", or anyone who disagrees with them for that matter??

Especially b/c you are playing this card in relation to someone challenging the constitutionality of something you want the government to do - or the constitutionality of much of what the government does.

Government officials, law enforcement, judges, teachers, etc, are told to be on the look out for "radical right-wing, anti-government extremists"... anyone who talks about the Constitution fits that description.

You're much more of a radical leftist than I could have imagined. It's sad.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Do you realize what you've just said is straight out of the liberal playbook for disparaging and smearing "conservatives", or anyone who disagrees with them for that matter??
> 
> Especially b/c you are playing this card in relation to someone challenging the constitutionality of something you want the government to do - or the constitutionality of much of what the government does.
> 
> Government officials, law enforcement, judges, teachers, etc, are told to be on the look out for "radical right-wing, anti-government extremists"... anyone who talks about the Constitution fits that description.
> 
> You're much more of a radical leftist than I could have imagined. It's sad.


In this case it happens to be accurate, or I wouldn't have said it.

I'm on a permanent jihad against extremists, especially on the Right lately, because they hurt my cause the most.

Ironically, on forums before this one I was on, I was mostly attacking and destroying leftists.

----------


## Maximatic

> This IS in the Constitution.
> 
> *" To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and  all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the  United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."*
> 
> And it can be interpreted to mean as things change, the necessary and proper changes need to be made as well.
> 
> This is also IN the Constitution:
> 
> *"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution"*
> ...


I did not make any reference to any statement outside of the constitution. I know it's vague. I know it's broad.

My statement, "calls back to the forgoing powers" refers to this:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper _for carrying into  Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this  Constitution_ in the Government of the United States, or in any  Department or Officer thereof."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

My point is that any defense of any act of congress that appeals to the necessary and proper clause would have to, according to the clause itself, also appeal to a power granted by the constitution somewhere other than the necessary and proper clause, itself because the clause, itself, qualifies "all laws" as those which are necessary and proper "_for carrying into  Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this  Constitution"_.

Why do people keep quoting Wilson to me?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Good googly moogly, we have a winner!!!
> 
> Finally, a constitutionalist!!!
> 
> Don, you are the first "conservative" on this forum to actually give a reasonable answer on the subject.
> 
> Although I agree with your contention that the problem is progressive interpretation, the _necessary and proper_ clause is problematic b/c it allows for wiggle room. No rational person would find ambiguity in it, but progressives/liberals are not rational or honest people. 
> 
> The Founding Fathers could not have dreamed of the levels of dishonesty and the lengths that future generations of dishonest men would go to find any means necessary to throw off the restrictive nature of the Constitution.
> ...


Thanks, and I'm waiting for someone to defend the Volunteerist philosophy now.

----------

wist43 (04-09-2014)

----------


## wist43

> I think it is eminiently constitutional. A federal government is supposed to protect the safety of every citizen within the purview of its writs from people, actions and substances that do them harm. Because it is not just the citizens of Virginia, Colorado or Idaho or any other states, but ALL the citizens equally that are affected adversely by illegal substances, only a federal law is able to deal with this adequately.





> You were asked to cite a constitutional provision to justify your opinion. Which provision are you imagining there?





> I'm waiting for you to provide your proofs for your arguments in your own words in this thread. 
> 
> Please, no cut and pastes from other threads and no long-winded nonsensical dodges. Just explain how the points are true.


 @DonGlock26 - I assume you haven't been following the urban combat that @Ghost and I have been engaged in... Ax was asking Ghost to respond to my challenge to cite an "enumerated power" within the Constitution.

Ghost will not cite anything - he simply wants the FedGov to have undefined, unlimited powers. What he wrote in that response is nonsense. Everything that Dan40 has posted on the question of enumerated powers has been gorilla dust - and now @Jim Scott has joined the parade.

All of these guys, and I'm sure more, present themselves as being either "conservatives" or at least something to the right of liberals/progressives; yet, when challenged on the specifics of government empowerment, they are a mirror image of liberals/progressives.

When I first pointed this out, that they accepted the basic tenents of progressive education, they were indignant - of course they were far too smart and cagey to fall for such progressive manipulations  :Wink: 

When push comes to shove however - which has been demonstrated in this thread and on the subject of drug prohibition and the question of whether the FedGov has authority to prohibit drugs by way of an enumerated power - they don't cite an enumerated power, they dance endlessly around the subject, never answer the question directly, and then at the end of all that, post some sort of undefined mandate as if it existed in a vacuum - which of course is nonsense.

Even if they had said the FedGov was empowered by _the general welfare clause_... I could have at least respected the fact that they cited something within the Constitution, and could have been able to argue back - as of course every learned and honest student of the Constitution knows that _the general welfare clause_ is not a grant of power.

None of those guys apparently understand that, but learned and honest students of the Constitution and our nations founding principles understand it.

Don, you are the only one to have given a reasonable and correct answer to the question. None of the supposed conservatives who have been flailing around on this subject have even come close. Honestly, I'm very much surprised - I at least thought Jim Scott would have a basic understanding of these things - but go back and read his post - complete ignorance.

It's amazing that there are so few constitutionalists left in this country. The progressives have definitely won.

----------


## wist43

> This IS in the Constitution.
> 
> *" To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and  all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the  United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."*
> 
> And it can be interpreted to mean as things change, the necessary and proper changes need to be made as well.
> 
> This is also IN the Constitution:
> 
> *"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution"*
> ...





> I did not make any reference to any statement outside of the constitution. I know it's vague. I know it's broad.
> 
> My statement, "calls back to the forgoing powers" refers to this:
> 
> "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper _for carrying into  Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this  Constitution_ in the Government of the United States, or in any  Department or Officer thereof."
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
> 
> My point is that any defense of any act of congress that appeals to the necessary and proper clause would have to, according to the clause itself, also appeal to a power granted by the constitution somewhere other than the necessary and proper clause, itself because the clause, itself, qualifies "all laws" as those which are necessary and proper "_for carrying into  Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this  Constitution"_.
> 
> Why do people keep quoting Wilson to me?


I quoted James Wilson to Dan a few days ago... Wilson was the actual author of the _necessary and proper clause.

_But as you can see - Wilson gives an explaination that is in keeping with the obvious, what other Founders stated, what you just stated above, and what I have been trying to get across to these neanderthals for several days now - i.e. that _the necessary and proper clause_ can only carry into effect the preceding enumerated powers.

That Dan then turns around and says that it is such a broadly worded clause that it means the government can do anything it wants is only more evidence of how far he and the others have bought into progressivism and positive, unconstrained government.

----------



----------


## wist43

> In this case it happens to be accurate, or I wouldn't have said it.
> 
> I'm on a permanent jihad against extremists, especially on the Right lately, because they hurt my cause the most.
> 
> Ironically, on forums before this one I was on, I was mostly attacking and destroying leftists.


All you've demonstrated is that you have no understanding of the Constitution or the principles of liberty.

The tortured and disjointed arguments you've tried to make can be found nowhere in the literature of the Constitution or its supporting documents.

Everything you have tried to argue, is straight out of the progressive playbook. Open-ended government; fuzzy undefined, limitless government; Marxists, progressives, liberals, fascists, nazis, communists, socialists, etc, would all agree with you.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

There is no street fight, wist, I'm talking apples you're talking pancakes, THAT'S what's going on. 

Like every other aspect of the constitution, 'enumerated powers' is open to interpretation. It's not self-evident.

It's like the Bible. The adherents of all denominations tell us that the Bible is simple, the meaning is right there. Funny how it turns out that hundreds of these interpretations of these simple meanings exist, thus creating a dizzying number of denominations.

So it is with the constitution.

----------


## wist43

> There is no street fight, wist, I'm talking apples you're talking pancakes, THAT'S what's going on. 
> 
> Like every other aspect of the constitution, 'enumerated powers' is open to interpretation. It's not self-evident.
> 
> It's like the Bible. The adherents of all denominations tell us that the Bible is simple, the meaning is right there. Funny how it turns out that hundreds of these interpretations of these simple meanings exist, thus creating a dizzying number of denominations.
> 
> So it is with the constitution.


Spoken like the liberal/progressive I now know you to be  :Wink: 

To be sure, my pancakes are the principled arguments of the Constitution and its supporting documents. Your apples are the misinterpretations of the progressives that are intended to destroy our nation and liberty.

Might I suggest you go back and read _The Federalist Papers_ and _The Convention Notes_ - the arguments of the progressive/liberals you are following are not to be found in those writings.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I'm trying to understand what's going here that prevents these radical anarchists from seeing what is obvious, and I have a few tentative ideas.

One of them is that I think a lot of them are using the term 'unconstitutional' as an impressive and sonorous-sounding synonym for 'bad' and 'Me no likey'. 

For example, large parts of Obamacare have been deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS. Many on the right didn't like it, but there you are. But just because a policy has been found to be constitutional DOESN'T, by a long shot, mean that it is GOOD or should be implemented. Obamacare needs to be repealed, not because it is 'unconstitutional' [which apparently it isn't], but because it's an absolutely AWFUL idea.

----------

Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Spoken like the liberal/progressive I now know you to be 
> 
> To be sure, my pancakes are the principled arguments of the Constitution and its supporting documents. Your apples are the misinterpretations of the progressives that are intended to destroy our nation and liberty.
> 
> Might I suggest you go back and read _The Federalist Papers_ and _The Convention Notes_ - the arguments of the progressive/liberals you are following are not to be found in those writings.


I'm not the one you need to be arguing with here, I don't get to make these decisions regarding the 'war on drugs' or any other anarchist-hippie bugbear. Make your case before the SCOTUS. Dazzle them with your irresistible command of constitutional law and supporting documents, make them see what a legal genius you are. Go on, you can do it: it's so easy, right? You do it every day HERE, it should be a snap for you.

Then after the justices stop laughing and have security escort you out of the building as a crack-pot, you can log on here complaining what a bunch of unconstitutional progressives they are....

You are quite the legal Walter Mitty, aren't you, wist? You and all the rest of the 'constitutional scholars' here like The Ax Man, Hoyty-Toyty, et al.

----------


## sparsely

> Shit, you're both lower than me. I must be doing something wrong.


lol don't sweat it, I think I skated by due to the...sparse (  :Wink:  ) nature of my posting habits as of late.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Another mistake often made is to automatically equate statism with liberalism. Le Pen's quite right wing party had its best-ever showing in recent French elections, and it is FAR from being 'small-government'.

----------


## wist43

> I'm trying to understand what's going here that prevents these radical anarchists from seeing what is obvious, and I have a few tentative ideas.
> 
> One of them is that I think a lot of them are using the term 'unconstitutional' as an impressive and sonorous-sounding synonym for 'bad' and 'Me no likey'. 
> 
> For example, large parts of Obamacare have been deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS. Many on the right didn't like it, but there you are. But just because a policy has been found to be constitutional DOESN'T, by a long shot, mean that it is GOOD or should be implemented. Obamacare needs to be repealed, not because it is 'unconstitutional' [which apparently it isn't], but because it's an absolutely AWFUL idea.


Ghost, these things are not a mystery. If you had any understanding of constitutional principles and the rule of law - you could reason your way thru the issues and judge them against the Constitution. 

The Constitution is a fairly simple document... only a few pages long. The things it says are simple and straightforward. The writings of the Founders on the other hand are voluminous. They take some dedication to read through and understand, but it is not an impossible task. It is obvious you have never taken the time to read them. If you had, you'd understand just how dangerous and insane the progressive interpretations of the Constitution are - interpretations that you blithly and foolishly accept.

You call someone who sticks to the original intent and writings of the Constitution "radical anarchists" - seriously, I don't think you understand the meanings of the terms. You certainly don't understand anything about the Constitution - so then how could you possibly judge anyone against it??

I can at least say some of the liberals I have had discussions and arguments with over the years at least understood how it was that they were twisting the meaning of some of the clauses and verbage. Sadly, you seem to have no understanding sufficient enough to even understand why a given interpretation may be valid, invalid, historically founded, created out of whole cloth, leveraged from foreign laws (as Ruth Bader Ginsburgh has said is valid), etc, you just accept whatever the progressives tell you as true.

It's sad. You really should stop voting - you're only doing harm to your country and posterity.

----------

michaelr (04-09-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Wist, at bottom, you are just one of an endless army of internet kooks, an eccentric wearing a tin-foil hat who thinks Eisenhower was a known communist agent.

Do you REALLY expect ANYONE to take _ANY_thing you say with the SLIGHTEST degree of seriousness? :Smiley20:

----------


## NuYawka

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't like my spot.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

Although I appreciate my position on this set of rankings, I cannot help but wonder how arbitrary it is.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Although I appreciate my position on this set of rankings, I cannot help but wonder how arbitrary it is.


The criterion is: Does The Ax Man approve of you? Does he disapprove of you? or is he indifferent to you?

THAT"S why I DEMAND a new list, and I want to be at the VERY TOP of it. :Smiley20:

----------


## michaelr

> Wist, at bottom, you are just one of an endless army of internet kooks, an eccentric wearing a tin-foil hat who thinks Eisenhower was a known communist agent.
> 
> Do you REALLY expect ANYONE to take _ANY_thing you say with the SLIGHTEST degree of seriousness?


You just spoke highly of Le Pen, a hard core, literal fascist, criminal, scum! Then you have the audacity to post this? BTW liberal, fascism isn't at all conservatism or right. It takes a hefty amount of socialism for fascism to ''work''!

----------


## Dan40

> I quoted James Wilson to Dan a few days ago... Wilson was the actual author of the _necessary and proper clause.
> 
> _But as you can see - Wilson gives an explaination that is in keeping with the obvious, what other Founders stated, what you just stated above, and what I have been trying to get across to these neanderthals for several days now - i.e. that _the necessary and proper clause_ can only carry into effect the preceding enumerated powers.
> 
> That Dan then turns around and says that it is such a broadly worded clause that it means the government can do anything it wants is only more evidence of how far he and the others have bought into progressivism and positive, unconstrained government.


What I said and what is TRUE, even tho you irrationally hate it is that Wilson's N%P clause IS part of the Constitution and his "explanation" is not part of the Constitution.

You keep DEMANDING that we adhere TO the Constitution while you make constitutional claims that are no more a part of the Constitution than your mindless prattle.

You continually demand, "How can this law exist?"  How can that drug be regulated?"  And you laugh at and deride VOTING.  Why don't you stop your childish demands and recoginize the the laws did happen and ARE in place and work on that?  And HOW did 2 states legalize your addiction?  VOTES!

Wake up and deal with reality, instead of your doped up idiocy.

And you cannot read at a 2nd grade level.  Dan never said a broadly worded clause means the govt can do anything.

I said it COULD be seen that way.  My fault?  No that is 100% James Wilson's fault.

MacArthur said it best.  "Never give an order that CAN be understood!  Only give orders that CANNOT be misunderstood."

Some of us are rational, you are not, and the more rational posts we make, the more irrational you become.

----------


## Maximatic

Did anyone notice that the image in the OP has "Anarchy" all the way to the left, which is completely inconsistent with my ranking of "From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom."?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You just spoke highly of Le Pen, a hard core, literal fascist, criminal, scum! Then you have the audacity to post this? BTW liberal, fascism isn't at all conservatism or right. It takes a hefty amount of socialism for fascism to ''work''!


I'm very leery about Le Pen, and deeply distrust him, and he is in many ways a kook, but I can understand how an increasingly islamized European nation like France can turn to him in desperation.

----------


## Maximatic

> I don't like my spot.


Alright. What do you think government should be responsible for?

----------


## michaelr

> I'm very leery about Le Pen, and deeply distrust him, and he is in many ways a kook, but I can understand how an increasingly islamized European nation like France can turn to him in desperation.


He's a criminal, an antisemite which as far as I'm concerned thats his business, and a fascist. See, here is the problem with big government. Le Pen was convicted of antisemitism. Now how the hell does that happen, and who does it serve. We're finding simular situations here, unelected bureaucrats making laws that are senseless and shameful. The EPA wants to create a law regulating emissions from guns. The EPA makes laws criminalizing people for collecting rain water. Man I could take days typing the list of bureaucratic laws. Guess what? They haven't the power. No you listen Ghost, I read you supporting this shit daily, and you put the American under the bus. 

I would of had you at the top of this list!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> He's a criminal, an antisemite which as far as I'm concerned thats his business, and a fascist. See, here is the problem with big government. Le Pen was convicted of antisemitism. Now how the hell does that happen, and who does it serve. We're finding simular situations here, unelected bureaucrats making laws that are senseless and shameful. The EPA wants to create a law regulating emissions from guns. The EPA makes laws criminalizing people for collecting rain water. Man I could take days typing the list of bureaucratic laws. Guess what? They haven't the power. No you listen Ghost, I read you supporting this shit daily, and you put the American under the bus. 
> 
> I would of had you at the top of this list!


Easy does it, big fella...

----------


## michaelr

> Easy does it, big fella...


I'm calm, I just don't get it Ghost.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'm calm, I just don't get it Ghost.


You and me both!

I come to a 'conservative' forum expecting to be fighting lefties and find few lefties but a whole army of whacko right-wing anarchist Timothey McVeigh types!!!

What rabbit-hole did I just slip down into!?!?!

----------

Jim Scott (04-09-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> You and me both!
> 
> I come to a 'conservative' forum expecting to be fighting lefties and find few lefties but a whole army of whacko right-wing anarchist Timothey McVeigh types!!!
> 
> What rabbit-hole did I just slip down into!?!?!


See, here we were discussing a difference, and what the fuck do you go and do? You've called me everything under the sun since I've been here. You can't debate, and you act like the typical liberal when confronted. I'm staying, I think most of us are. Don't like it, tough shit.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),wist43 (04-10-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Although I appreciate my position on this set of rankings, I cannot help but wonder how arbitrary it is.


Well, I arbitrarily chose the definition of the spectrum, which is most state control on the left (top), and none on the right, not what the image says. I grabbed the image assuming it was a typical representation of the spectrum I wanted, without even reading it through. I just noticed that it isn't. I tried to rank everyone as appropriately as I could, other than the top few. The "liberal" leaning posters are scattered in there at random, partly because I don't know much about the degree to which each of them, personally, think central government should assume responsibility, but which, from my experience, usually turns out to be similar to what the more partisan Republicans seem to want. And two of the conservatives at the top are only there because they've irritated me recently. Other than that I tried to rank everyone as appropriately as I could.

One mistake the self styled Conservatives seem to be making is that the list encompasses the entire spectrum, but i don't think there are any full blown communists here, even though the logical outworking of some of these interpretations of constitutional authority dose end up in an unlimited federal government in principle.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> See, here we were discussing a difference, and what the fuck do you go and do? You've called me everything under the sun since I've been here. You can't debate, and you act like the typical liberal when confronted. I'm staying, I think most of us are. Don't like it, tough shit.


Was I referring to you specifically? No. So quieten down. You'll be rid of me sooner than you think and you whack-jobs will have untrammeled free rein around here, which was your plan all along.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

By the way, michaelr, WHEN have I EVER supported unnecessary and harmful EPA regulations here?

How about 'never'.

----------


## Maximatic

> I would of had you at the top of this list!


I did. I changed it after Nixon and Glock started posting.

----------


## michaelr

> I did. I changed it after Nixon and Glock started posting.


That explains it. These three are self proclaimed conservatives aren't they?

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> By the way, michaelr, WHEN have I EVER supported unnecessary and harmful EPA regulations here?
> 
> How about 'never'.


I'm very proud of you. That is an excellent position to hold.

----------


## michaelr

> Was I referring to you specifically? No. So quieten down. You'll be rid of me sooner than you think and you whack-jobs will have untrammeled free rein around here, which was your plan all along.


You quoted me when you said it!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That explains it. These three are self proclaimed conservatives aren't they?


Please direct me to the official 'proclaiming' body so I can have them legitimately 'proclaim' me a true-blue conservative.

----------


## Maximatic

> That explains it. These three are self proclaimed conservatives aren't they?


Yes.

----------

michaelr (04-09-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You quoted me when you said it!


But I wasn't referring to you alone.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'm very proud of you. That is an excellent position to hold.


BUT there ARE EPA regulations that I would support, especially those regarding dumping dangerous pollutants into water and air. But not to save a nesting area for bird that can easily find other nesting areas.

There ARE some necessary regulations, you know.

----------


## michaelr

> By the way, michaelr, WHEN have I EVER supported unnecessary and harmful EPA regulations here?
> 
> How about 'never'.


Well that's mighty white of you. Are you advocating that we should only follow some laws by bureaucracy now? That's a huge change for you, it must be hard to enter the dark side....

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Well that's mighty white of you. Are you advocating that we should only follow some laws by bureaucracy now? That's a huge change for you, it must be hard to enter the dark side....


Follow them all, or don't, get charged to draw attention to it, and start a movement to reverse it.

You DON'T get to pick and choose what law to obey without expecting consequences if you're caught.

----------


## michaelr

> Please direct me to the official 'proclaiming' body so I can have them legitimately 'proclaim' me a true-blue conservative.


You make any proclamation that you want, hell I support ghat, but remember, your actions are how you are judged, not what you call yourself.

----------


## michaelr

> Yes.


Weird.

----------


## michaelr

> But I wasn't referring to you alone.


Oh I know, you insulted a few of us. You were confronted, backed into a corner, so you did what you do.

----------

wist43 (04-10-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> BUT there ARE EPA regulations that I would support, especially those regarding dumping dangerous pollutants into water and air. But not to save a nesting area for bird that can easily find other nesting areas.
> 
> There ARE some necessary regulations, you know.


I'm disappointed. I would think someone who likes to quote Thomas Sowell would have a little more confidence in natural market regulations.

----------


## michaelr

> Follow them all, or don't, get charged to draw attention to it, and start a movement to reverse it.
> 
> You DON'T get to pick and choose what law to obey without expecting consequences if you're caught.


So your siding with the unelected bureaucrats and their laws should be obeyed according to you. Huh, I'll see what you say when the EPA criminalizes your guns. I would hope for hypocrisy but you'll cave, it's conservative in you Orwellian books!

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),wist43 (04-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'm disappointed. I would think someone who likes to quote Thomas Sowell would have a little more confidence in natural market regulations.


Natural market regulations are absolutely superb at producing and distributing goods and wealth and increasing the prosperity of nations through free trade. They have NOT been so good for controlling pollution or worker safety. Free markets did not prevent Love Canal, The Cuyahoga River being so polluted that it caught fire, and Bhopal, to name just three. Government has a role to play here.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> So your siding with the unelected bureaucrats and their laws should be obeyed according to you. Huh, I'll see what you say when the EPA criminalizes your guns. I would hope for hypocrisy but you'll cave, it's conservative in you Orwellian books!


There's a way to fight it and a way not to.

YOU are advocating lawlessness and...appropriately enough...anarchy.

Break the law and the state has the RIGHT to punish you and YOU have no right to complain. You have to REPEAL THE LAW.

OR you can do what my Italian relatives do: ignore inconvenient laws and bribe local bureaucrats to look the other way. It's an option.

----------


## michaelr

> There's a way to fight it and a way not to.
> 
> YOU are advocating lawlessness and...appropriately enough...anarchy.
> 
> Break the law and the state has the RIGHT to punish you and YOU have no right to complain. You have to REPEAL THE LAW.
> 
> OR you can do what my Italian relatives do: ignore inconvenient laws and bribe local bureaucrats to look the other way. It's an option.


So, correct me if I'm wrong please, you'll give them up then you will change the system. Is that your stance?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> So, correct me if I'm wrong please, you'll give them up then you will change the system. Is that your stance?


No, I'd keep then, ignore the law, get arrested, and start the process rolling.

----------


## michaelr

> No, I'd keep then, ignore the law, get arrested, and start the process rolling.


So then your saying that we get to pick and choose what laws we will comply to. That's a massive walk to the dark side. Start calling you McVeigh.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> So then your saying that we get to pick and choose what laws we will comply to. That's a massive walk to the dark side. Start calling you McVeigh.


No, it's the Martin Luther King method. And it WORKED.

----------


## michaelr

See, I'm under the impression that we shouldn't be made criminals of because unelected bureaucrats wanna create more laws. It ain't worth it, and the way to end it is spelled out clearly in the constitution.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Pointless standoffs whose results are foreordained are completely ridiculous apart from inspiring McVeigh-like acts of domestic terrorism and exciting the Duck-Dynasty Camo-clad, fat fuck militia types into a fresh ouotburst of 'agin deh gummint' frenzy.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

By the way, where's Invayne today? 

The kook brigade seems somehow incomplete without her.

----------


## michaelr

> Pointless standoffs whose results are foreordained are completely ridiculous apart from inspiring McVeigh-like acts of domestic terrorism and exciting the Duck-Dynasty Camo-clad, fat fuck militia types into a fresh ouotburst of 'agin deh gummint' frenzy.





> By the way, where's Invayne today? 
> 
> The kook brigade seems somehow incomplete without her.


I think the idiot....err kook brigade is all here, it's you man, it's really you....hahaha

----------


## Jim Scott

> The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance - it would seem you couldn't care less about the Constitution, the rule of law, or liberty... b/c the bottom line is,* liberty cannot survive without citizens fighting for the rule of law that constrains the government.*


It would seem argumentative, self-satisfied libertarians casting aspersions on conservatives for not sharing their libertarian orthodoxy couldn't care less about the real enemy of freedom; leftists that are gaining ground by the day while smug libertarians castigate conservative Americans who have been fighting leftists for years while the libertarians can't win an important national election because of their positions on drugs, the use of military force and other critical issues that keep the libertarian party reduced to fighting conservatives on internet political forums in lieu of achieving any substantial political victories.  Internet bravado and trading insults with conservatives may be a pleasant past-time for some libertarians but to most conservatives, it is nothing more than a distraction and an unnecessary waste of our energy.  Let's fight leftists instead of playing one-upmanship on who are the REAL constitutionalists.  I think it's safe to say we're all patriots and can do better than this kind of interminable debate.

*Jim*

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> That explains it. These three are self proclaimed conservatives aren't they?


Conservatism is a sane political philosophy. The OP volunteerist can't defend his fantasy position in this thread where he labels others, alerts them, and puts questions to them. LOL!!!

Can you defend his argument point by point? Can anyone support the volunteerist's argument?

----------


## DonGlock26

> It would seem argumentative, self-satisfied libertarians casting aspersions on conservatives


They can't even defend their position when asked to prove it in this thread. How intellectually vacuous is that?

----------


## wist43

> It would seem argumentative, self-satisfied libertarians casting aspersions on conservatives for not sharing their libertarian orthodoxy couldn't care less about the real enemy of freedom; leftists that are gaining ground by the day while smug libertarians castigate conservative Americans who have been fighting leftists for years while the libertarians can't win an important national election because of their positions on drugs, the use of military force and other critical issues that keep the libertarian party reduced to fighting conservatives on internet political forums in lieu of achieving any substantial political victories.  Internet bravado and trading insults with conservatives may be a pleasant past-time for some libertarians but to most conservatives, it is nothing more than a distraction and an unnecessary waste of our energy.  Let's fight leftists instead of playing one-upmanship on who are the REAL constitutionalists.  I think it's safe to say we're all patriots and can do better than this kind of interminable debate.
> 
> *Jim*


You're not a conservative by my understanding of the term - you accept progressivism like a puppy dog happy to be petted.

You say progressive interpretations of the Constitution are fine, and we must abide by them - then you say it is pointless to argue about it?? WTF??

Here is a blurb from your ignorant post #213 -




> Granted, the federal government is too big and far too intrusive.  We all can agree on that.  However, playing semantic games with self-anointed 'experts' in constitutionality and then being hectored by these internet political gamers that infest political boards is simply a waste of our time.  The nation is crumbling under the weight of federal 'entitlements' and other liberal concoctions while our society implodes from within.


As I pointed out to Ghost, you're doing exactly what the liberals do - when called out on the constitutionality of the things they advocate, and the things federal agencies are implementing in furtherance of their agenda, you resort to disparaging constitutionalists as "kooks" and "right-wing extremists".

*Pointing out that federal agencies shouldn't be making law is not "semantics", it is principle.* Our Founding Fathers never intended for the _necessary and proper clause_ to be interpreted in such a way - and we have their writings to prove it. Yet, we are "kooks"??

You say the "... the federal government is too big and far too intrusive" - agreed, but how did we get there?? You accept the progressive precepts that allow for the unconstitutional expansion of our government, and then complain that it is too big as if it were some big happy accident?? Again, WTF??

You need to wake up and smell what you shovlin pal.

----------


## wist43

> Conservatism is a sane political philosophy. The OP volunteerist can't defend his fantasy position in this thread where he labels others, alerts them, and puts questions to them. LOL!!!
> 
> Can you defend his argument point by point? Can anyone support the volunteerist's argument?


I wouldn't attempt to defend Ax's positions point by point - I probably have more disagreement with Ax than I do conservatives - I used to call myself a conservative, but as I've pointed out, conservatives have left the reservation. I don't even know what the term means anymore.

If Ghost and Jim Scott are "conservatives", then that would mean that conservatives accept the progressive interpretations of the Constitution and see nothing wrong with agencies making law. They've both said exactly that. In all my years working in the freedom fight, and working with many Republican politicians over the years, I cannot recall one of them agreeing with that view of the Constitution.

Without exception, every conservative I worked with believed in original intent, and fought hard against progressive interpretations of the Constitution. Ghost and Jim have no use for such people, and dismiss us as "kooks" and "right wing extremists" who are chasing our tails arguing "semantics".

No Don, I can't recall a single "conservative" I ever worked with who interpreted the Consitution in such ways, or viewed the baseline debate about the Constitutionality of what the FedGov was doing as "semantics".

The Constitution is supposed to define the FedGov, not the other way around - and the argument is not one of "semantics" as Jim says, but rather it is an argument of principle.

----------

fyrenza (04-10-2014)

----------


## wist43

I find it amazing, aside from Don, it would seem "conservatives" on this forum have decided to join hands with liberals in their interpretation of the Constitution so as to stand against the pro-Constitution arguments of libertarians.

How far "conservativism" has fallen - it is truly amazing to see people who call themselves "conservatives" argue against original intent, and in favor of the lawlessness of progressivism.

 :Wtf20:  :Thinking:

----------


## Calypso Jones

what are you talking about?   Are you hallucinating??

----------


## wist43

> what are you talking about?   Are you hallucinating??


Have you read anything in this thread from Dan, Ghost, or Jim??

All 3 of them are slamming advocates of original intent and the precepts of limited government as "kooks and extremists".

It all got started over FedGov drug prohibition. The DEA gets their supposed authority and makes law by way of the _necessary and proper clause._ All federal agencies make law - they don't call them laws, they call them rules and regulations, but of course they have the power of the law. Back in the day, "conservatives" would argue that this was clearly unconstitutional.

Dan and Ghost spent days playing semantic games and refusing to acknowledge that the N&P was never intended to be interpreted in that way. I and others have posted numerous quotes from the Founding Fathers proving this. Facts be damned, they refused to accept the constitutional, dare I say "conservative" arguments and proof.

Jim Scott has joined with them, and I'd have to go back and look to see if there have been other "conservatives", but the bottom line is, these "so-called" conservatives have stated that they accept the progressive interpretations of the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't agree with and abide by those interpretations is some sort of "extremist nut" worthy of such derision.

That's the bed they've made and chosen to lie in.

*Don't know what to tell ya... I have to say I'm somewhat shocked that people who call themselves "conservatives" would hold those views of the Constitution.*

----------


## michaelr

> Conservatism is a sane political philosophy. The OP volunteerist can't defend his fantasy position in this thread where he labels others, alerts them, and puts questions to them. LOL!!!
> 
> Can you defend his argument point by point? Can anyone support the volunteerist's argument?



He didn't label you. You did that. Registering as a republican doesn't mean you're a conservative. I see this all the time with neocons. You people are actually pretty damn liberal. You don't mind a runaway government, in fact you defend it. You don't mind debt and deficits. You support the public school systems. The federal reserve doesn't seem to bother you. You allow then  tell us that we should follow laws made by bureaucracies. The militarized police state turns you on, and I can go on all day. Those philosophies are identical to any liberals.

----------

fyrenza (04-10-2014),Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> He didn't label you. You did that. Registering as a republican doesn't mean you're a conservative. I see this all the time with neocons. You people are actually pretty damn liberal. You don't mind a runaway government, in fact you defend it. You don't mind debt and deficits. You support the public school systems. The federal reserve doesn't seem to bother you. You allow then  tell us that we should follow laws made by bureaucracies. The militarized police state turns you on, and I can go on all day. Those philosophies are identical to any liberals.


what the hell guys. You don't know what bothers us or what we actually think.  These are words on a board.  Who exactly tinkled in your cheerios this week to make you determine that the rest of us are not 'doing our jobs'.

----------


## michaelr

> what the hell guys. You don't know what bothers us or what we actually think. These are words on a board. Who exactly tinkled in your cheerios this week to make you determine that the rest of us are not 'doing our jobs'.


But some  aren't. I don't put you in their boat. I was told yesterday that we should cave in to bureaucracy dictated laws, get arrested, then go to court to say get our gun rights back. That's the craziest thing I read all month, and I've not just read crazy stuff, but written it too. 

Your words are what you own. If you're saying that you're not honest, then this would be a good time. The rest of us can just take what you say with a value of a grain of salt. I am my words, that's important to me. What you read from me, right or wrong, controversial or not, that's me.

----------


## wist43

Don't understand why you guys would be arguing... by my reading of what all 3 of you (Don, CP, michaelr) post - you're advocates of constitutionally limited government??

Am I missing something??

The neocons on the other hand, namely Ghost, Dan, Jim, et al - have come right out and stated agreement with the precepts of progressivism. michaelr is exactly right on that count. Not putting words in their mouths, or assigning them out of perception - their words, their positions.

For all intents and purposes, there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between a neocon and a progressive/liberal. They are all statists by definition. They may throw different food in the food fight, but they all agree on the ground rules provided by liberals who are promoting the progressive philosophy in their legal rulings.

Original intent and commitment to the Constitution and the principles of republican government are what seperates conservatives and libertarians from liberals and neocons.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Don't understand why you guys would be arguing... by my reading of what all 3 of you (Don, CP, michaelr) post - you're advocates of constitutionally limited government??
> 
> Am I missing something??
> 
> The neocons on the other hand, namely Ghost, Dan, Jim, et al - have come right out and stated agreement with the precepts of progressivism. michaelr is exactly right on that count. Not putting words in their mouths, or assigning them out of perception - their words, their positions.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between a neocon and a progressive/liberal. They are all statists by definition. They may throw different food in the food fight, but they all agree on the ground rules provided by liberals who are promoting the progressive philosophy in their legal rulings.
> 
> Original intent and commitment to the Constitution and the principles of republican government are what seperates conservatives and libertarians from liberals and neocons.


Don Glock?

----------


## wist43

> Don Glock?


Don gave the only constitutionalist answer to the _necessary and proper clause_ question, and has demonstrated an understanding of states rights.

I haven't talked to Don enough to know where he falls on any number of issues, but if anyone recognizes and acknowledges those basic tenents of our federal republic - we're well on our way to at least being able to discuss issues.

Can't have logical, valid discussions with the neocons, liberals or progressives - b/c they don't recognize or acknowledge the principles of our federal republic.

Perhaps if Don and I had lengthy converations on any number of issues we might disagree; but if someone is willing to acknowledge states rights, and the restrictive nature of the Constitution - we can agree to disagree and be okay to discuss other issues, b/c neither one of us is trying to use the force and power of the federal government against the other. 

States rights afford for disagreement and differences in governance, and that is perfectly appropriate. I might disagree with what people in one state want as opposed to another, but at least I have the freedom of choice to choose where to live, and live somewhere that is to my liking... Don would have the same option, as would you.

I think Don would agree with us that the FedGov has very little constitutional authority to be involved in our daily lives, economy, etc.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014),fyrenza (04-10-2014),Invayne (04-10-2014),michaelr (04-10-2014)

----------


## Jim Scott

> You're not a conservative by my understanding of the term - you accept progressivism like a puppy dog happy to be petted.
> 
> You say progressive interpretations of the Constitution are fine, and we must abide by them - then you say it is pointless to argue about it?? WTF??
> 
> Here is a blurb from your ignorant post #213 -
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to Ghost, you're doing exactly what the liberals do - when called out on the constitutionality of the things they advocate, and the things federal agencies are implementing in furtherance of their agenda, you resort to disparaging constitutionalists as "kooks" and "right-wing extremists".
> ...


Well now.

This kind of ranting from holier-than-thou libertarians is futile.  Conservatives and libertarians can agree on many issues, even work together in specific instances  but it's impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with those who's idea of political discussion is to castigate lifelong conservatives and constantly call them 'statists' because they don't walk in lockstep with libertarian political dogma that is, at it's core, a call for anarchy.  I've been down this road before with libertarians and it's a dead end.  No conservative is ever going to accept a self-righteous libertarian's accusations of being in league with progressives/socialists/communists and other such nonsense.  

This thread has wasted too much of the time of people who are concerned about the direction of their country but instead of political discussion that is informative we get endless posts from disgruntled libertarians who seem to come here for the singular purpose of calling us names and telling us we are no better than Obama in terms of disregarding our constitution.  That is purposely insulting, unadulterated rubbish.  

Nationally, libertarians go nowhere with their philosophy for various reasons but this kind of arrogant insult seems to be the native tongue for the libertarians ranting on this now-toxic thread.  That's too bad.  No one is going to be pursuaded by libertarian braggadocio and attempts to usurp the 'conservative' political designation from those who have fought against leftism all their lives.  I would prefer to find some common ground to fight the leftist agenda in America but instead I'm told in no uncertain terms that I'm ignorant and, in effect, one of the 'enemy' because I don't support the libertarian ideology that is unrealistic and will never be successful.  I find that assertion ridiculous and unsustainable outside of the libertarian bubble. 

 Apparently there is no resolution to this schism.  Considering that I have a limited amount of time to spend here I will no longer waste it attempting to talk to stone walls.  I've made my arguments.  They have been summarily rejected by libertarians, with rancor and arrogance, to boot.  At this point the thread serves no real purpose that I can see and so I will abandon it at this point.  Others may wish to continue it.  For my conservative friends, I wish you well.  For the libertarians, I will simply wish you peace.

*Jim*

----------

Shoey (04-10-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> Wist, at bottom, you are just one of an endless army of internet kooks, an eccentric wearing a tin-foil hat who thinks Eisenhower was a known communist agent.
> 
> Do you REALLY expect ANYONE to take _ANY_thing you say with the SLIGHTEST degree of seriousness?


Well, *I* take @wist43 seriously and enjoy his posts because they make me think.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> Well now.
> 
> This kind of ranting from holier-than-thou libertarians is futile.  Conservatives and libertarians can agree on many issues, even work together in specific instances  but it's impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with those who's idea of political discussion is to castigate lifelong conservatives and constantly call them 'statists' because they don't walk in lockstep with libertarian political dogma that is, at it's core, a call for anarchy.  I've been down this road before with libertarians and it's a dead end.  No conservative is ever going to accept a self-righteous libertarian's accusations of being in league with progressives/socialists/communists and other such nonsense.  
> 
> <blah, blah, blah>
> 
> *Jim*


Good GRIEF!  Talk about your "holier than thou" postings ...

It would appear that you believe that following the intent and actual words in our Constitution is some " libertarian political dogma " ???

And for you to say something about "this thread has wasted too much of the time" of _ANYONE_,
given that your posts are usually mini-novellas, 
is absolutely mind-boggling.
(I'm sorry but, imho, the truly intelligent can say their piece, succinctly,
so I avoid long-winded <what I consider> blatherings.)

You got owned ~ it happens.
Humility sux,
but you won't really learn anything from anyone else until you experience it.

----------

wist43 (04-10-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Well, *I* take @wist43 seriously and enjoy his posts because they make me think.


If only we could get the guys who disagree to actually engage him on the issue at hand instead of wasting all their time talking about how futile they find it and and how unpleasant they find libertarians in general.

I honestly still don't know what the point of contention is. Until we, at least, find that, the discussion is definitely not futile.

----------


## Dan40

> I quoted James Wilson to Dan a few days ago... Wilson was the actual author of the _necessary and proper clause.
> 
> _But as you can see - Wilson gives an explaination that is in keeping with the obvious, what other Founders stated, what you just stated above, and what I have been trying to get across to these neanderthals for several days now - i.e. that _the necessary and proper clause_ can only carry into effect the preceding enumerated powers.
> 
> That Dan then turns around and says that it is such a broadly worded clause that it means the government can do anything it wants is only more evidence of how far he and the others have bought into progressivism and positive, unconstrained government.



Where in the Constitution is Wilson's explanation?  Nowhere, it is not any part of the Constitution.  It is NOT an official document. and has zero standing.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

If you insist that some statement outside the Constitution has validity, then liberals are equally free to insist that any bullshit they make up has equal validity.

If Wilson wrote the N&P clause and then felt he had to explain it, perhaps HE realized he wrote a fucked up clause.

Broad and vague,,,,,,,,,equals fucked up, in law.

----------



----------


## wist43

> If only we could get the guys who disagree to actually engage him on the issue at hand instead of wasting all their time talking about how futile they find it and and how unpleasant they find libertarians in general.
> 
> I honestly still don't know what the point of contention is. Until we, at least, find that, the discussion is definitely not futile.


This weeks long shoot 'em up started when I challenged them on the constitutionality of the "war on drugs".

It took forever for some of them to admit that the supposed constitutional power came from the _necessary and proper clause_ - which conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists have always argued is not a grant of power - just as our Founding Fathers stated that it was not a grant of power.

We're not arguing anything unique or orignal here - it is an argument that goes back decades, and it is an argument that must not be laid aside. That said, neocons and liberals are in cahoots in that they are both getting things out of the open-ended interpretation that is to their liking, and so they don't want to rock the boat. 

*Liberals are getting all manner of nonsense out of it - agencies that can make law?? What more could a statist ask for?? And neocons love that the DEA, DHS, etc can crack skulls and militarize without congressional oversight. It's a marriage made in hell.
*
Liberals have no qualms against owning these ludicrous interpretations - they cheer and champion government to the heavens. For neocons and conservatives though, it is a sticky wicket b/c they try to present themselves as the antidote to liberalism; supposed champions of small government, not necessarily limited government - there's a difference.

When confronted with the obvious fraudulent and nefarious nature of the progressive interpretation of the _necessary and proper clause_ neocons and conservatives have 3 choices.

1) admit that it is not a legitimate grant of power, and acknowledge that the "war on drugs" on the federal level is wholly unconstitutional

2) admit that they agree with the progressive interpretation, and are exposed as advocates in principle of limitless government

or

3) deny, deny, deny; obfuscate, kick up gorilla dust, huff and puff, insult and name call, and ultimately pick up their ball and go home - never admitting anything, and never actually engaging in debate or discussion.

It would seem that most of the neocons on this forum have decided to go with option 3, lol...  :Smile:

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## squidward

> It would seem that most of the neocons on this forum have decided to go with option 3, lol...


a legitimate grant of powers is any power they agree with. All other powers are illegitimate, especially ones involving "liberal" ideas.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I think the anarchists here suffer under the influence of another misunderstanding.

They want to take interpreting the constitution beyond the realm of politics and ideology. they believe the constitution--just like fundamentalists treat the Bible--is so simple and self-evident that only one interpretation [their own] is possible. 

This is pure fantasy. The Constitution is by definition a political document, and politicians and jurists with differing ideologies WILL interpret it in different ways. There's simply no getting around that.

We know that anarcho-libertarians disdain getting involved in party politics--it's what contributes to how ineffectual and unimportant they have been--but the fact remains, if they want to move the ball forward in the direction they'd like to see it, involvement in one of the two political parties is unavoidable. If their main issue happens to be a hatred for all things military, being pro-drugs, pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion then those libertarians will gravitate towards the Democrat party and work within that. If their position is low or no taxes, deregulation and strict constructionism then they will gravitate towards the Republican Party.

But they don't do that very often because they turn their noses up at both parties.

OK, then libertarians: you want a regime closer to the constitutional ideals you have been peddling here? You need to fill both houses of Congress and the presidency with those who are most open to your views. That means the GOP. 

Sorry, it's the ONLY way it can be done, realistically. The interpretation of what the constitution means is never going to be above party, ideological politics, and the dirty business of politics is the only way you are going to realize your vision here.

----------


## fyrenza

> This weeks long shoot 'em up started when I challenged them on the constitutionality of the "war on drugs".
> 
> It took forever for some of them to admit that the supposed constitutional power came from the _necessary and proper clause_ - which conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists have always argued is not a grant of power - just as our Founding Fathers stated that it was not a grant of power.
> 
> We're not arguing anything unique or orignal here - it is an argument that goes back decades, and it is an argument that must not be laid aside. That said, neocons and liberals are in cahoots in that they are both getting things out of the open-ended interpretation that is to their liking, and so they don't want to rock the boat. 
> 
> *Liberals are getting all manner of nonsense out of it - agencies that can make law?? What more could a statist ask for?? And neocons love that the DEA, DHS, etc can crack skulls and militarize without congressional oversight. It's a marriage made in hell.
> *
> Liberals have no qualms against owning these ludicrous interpretations - they cheer and champion government to the heavens. For neocons and conservatives though, it is a sticky wicket b/c they try to present themselves as the antidote to liberalism; supposed champions of small government, not necessarily limited government - there's a difference.
> ...

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> 3) deny, deny, deny; obfuscate, kick up gorilla dust, huff and puff, insult and name call, and ultimately pick up their ball and go home - never admitting anything, and never actually engaging in debate or discussion.
> 
> It would seem that most of the neocons on this forum have decided to go with option 3, lol...


It is obvious that the above is exactly what YOU have been doing.

So evidently YOU are a neocon since you don't consider that name calling.

And you are immeasurably obtuse since you don't consider that to be name calling either.

What else may I call you that you have set as a precedent that is not name calling?


And you don't have any interest in anyone "engaging" on the issue.  Your singular issue is to have someone intelligent agree with your pitiful little whine about a stupid recreational drug that allows you to avoid reality and responsibility.

----------


## wist43

> I think the anarchists here suffer under the influence of another misunderstanding.
> 
> They want to take interpreting the constitution beyond the realm of politics and ideology. they believe the constitution--just like fundamentalists treat the Bible--is so simple and self-evident that only one interpretation [their own] is possible.


Don't know what "anarchists" you're talking about... I'm a republican constitutionalist first, a believer in federalism second, and libertarian as the cherry on top of that sundae - always wary of protecting liberty. Those positions used to, by and large, add up to being a conservative - but apparently not anymore. As I've said, it is the rest of you who left the reservation - I haven't moved.

I agree with the old axiom, "... the essence of freedom is the limitation of government".

Nothing anarchistic about my views - I would even agree with some of your positions on drug prohibition - on the state level, but we can never get to that conversation b/c you are completely hung up on centralized power, which a far greater danger to our republic and everyone's freedom than someone smoking a joint.




> This is pure fantasy. The Constitution is by definition a political document, and politicians and jurists with differing ideologies WILL interpret it in different ways. There's simply no getting around that.


Yes, reasonable people can have differences of opinion with respect to interpreting clauses of the Constitution - *what we're talking about here are not* _reasonable interpretations.

_The _necessary and proper clause_ reads, "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be *necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

*James Wilson, author of the clause, James Madison, who holds the title of "Father of our Constitution", Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, John Adams, et al, all recognized the obvious, i.e. that what this means is that the Congress can makes laws to give substance to "the foregoing powers".

Not "anarchistic"; not "right-wing extremist"; certainly not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is to say that means that the Congress can 1) make any law it wants without consideration to "the foregoing powers"; and 2) that agencies can make law on their own.

The unreasonable and ridiculous interpretations of that clause, and of course all other clauses, come to us from - guess who?? Yes, you guessed it, progressives/liberals/socialists, i.e. statists who want to unchain the government from the constrictions of a Constitution and the rule of law.

You have chosen to align yourself with those ridiculous interpretations - and at the same time ridicule and disparage anyone who subscribes to common sense and original intent.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Don gave the only constitutionalist answer to the _necessary and proper clause_ question, and has demonstrated an understanding of states rights.
> 
> I haven't talked to Don enough to know where he falls on any number of issues, but if anyone recognizes and acknowledges those basic tenents of our federal republic - we're well on our way to at least being able to discuss issues.
> 
> Can't have logical, valid discussions with the neocons, liberals or progressives - b/c they don't recognize or acknowledge the principles of our federal republic.
> 
> Perhaps if Don and I had lengthy converations on any number of issues we might disagree; but if someone is willing to acknowledge states rights, and the restrictive nature of the Constitution - we can agree to disagree and be okay to discuss other issues, b/c neither one of us is trying to use the force and power of the federal government against the other. 
> 
> States rights afford for disagreement and differences in governance, and that is perfectly appropriate. I might disagree with what people in one state want as opposed to another, but at least I have the freedom of choice to choose where to live, and live somewhere that is to my liking... Don would have the same option, as would you.
> ...


I do agree that the current gov't is not in keeping with the spirit of the original constitution. However, if a constitution amendment is passed, then it is constitutional even if the founding fathers would have been against it. It is up to Americans to correct the errors and return the nation to the path of liberty laid out by the Founding Fathers.

----------


## DonGlock26

> He didn't label you. You did that. Registering as a republican doesn't mean you're a conservative. I see this all the time with neocons. You people are actually pretty damn liberal. You don't mind a runaway government, in fact you defend it. You don't mind debt and deficits. You support the public school systems. The federal reserve doesn't seem to bother you. You allow then  tell us that we should follow laws made by bureaucracies. The militarized police state turns you on, and I can go on all day. Those philosophies are identical to any liberals.


He placed my name on a political scale that labeled me as tending towards an extreme statist position. Now, he's ducking the questioning of his argument.  :Lame: 

How am I a liberal? I hope you won't hide from me like he is.

I defend a run away gov't? How? 

I don't mind debt and deficits? Post your proof here. 

I'd support public school vouchers. An educated public makes the nation's military and economy powerful and protects the constitutional republic. That is the common welfare.

You are wrong about the Fed. Why are you making up all these lies about me? 

I support law and order like conservatives do. You sound like an anarchist or libertarian not a conservative.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I wouldn't attempt to defend Ax's positions point by point.


That makes two of you.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That makes two of you.


Anarcho-libertarians occupy an uneasy and unstable position between the permissive left and the small-government right. That's why theirs is such a sterile political philosophy. Neither fish nor foul, they don't know who or where they are.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> He placed my name on a political scale that labeled me as tending towards an extreme statist position. Now, he's ducking the questioning of his argument. 
> 
> How am I a liberal? I hope you won't hide from me like he is.
> 
> I defend a run away gov't? How? 
> 
> I don't mind debt and deficits? Post your proof here. 
> 
> I'd support public school vouchers. An educated public makes the nation's military and economy powerful and protects the constitutional republic. That is the common welfare.
> ...


I am a conservative libertarian, an old school con. 

I may have mistaken some of your pro-police state stances as being pro-large government. It's easy and natural to do. We can clear the air. 

Vouchers BTW are still beholding to the dept of education standards. I don't support them, the schools are the domain of the states, and screw the rest. 

I never hear you complain about monetary policies, therefore I figure that you appreciate the great job the scum federal reserve is doing. 

I never hear you speak ill of free trade, or the trade deficits, which I believe are record again. 

Todays conservatives aren't very conservative. They promote wars for wrong reasons, they don't mind the TSA, DHS, the NSA and other tyrannical programs. It isn't any wonder I don't sound like them, I'm not them. That's not law and order, that's dictatorship under the guise of security. The truth is, these people are useless, and their track record proves it, but they know what you're doing. 

Set the record straight, and I will be more then delighted to apologize on its own thread, and damn sure I never make the mistake twice.

----------

countryboy (04-10-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> I do agree that the current gov't is not in keeping with the spirit of the original constitution. However, if a constitution amendment is passed, then it is constitutional even if the founding fathers would have been against it. It is up to Americans to correct the errors and return the nation to the path of liberty laid out by the Founding Fathers.


You hit on one of the problems of  libertarians that frequent this forum are all about.

Like liberals that constantly claim obobo is good because Bush was bad.  Nonsense.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Same with our drooling libertarians.  As they mistakenly see it, you either MUST agree with them in all things, or you absolutely must agree with the left.

So many times I have said to libertarians to I agree with much, not all, that they stand for and if they really want to make progress, THEY, not me, have to clean up THEIR own act.

What happens?  I'm called a liberal progressive statist.  One can only imagine how much that makes me want to help libertarians even agreeing with many of their positions.

Logic would tell the non-rapid frother that 42 years of zero progress indicates some type of internal problem.  But NO!  It is our fault for arriving at our own conclusions, not toeing the exact libertarian line.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Anarcho-libertarianism is a CULT, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014)

----------


## wist43

> I do agree that the current gov't is not in keeping with the spirit of the original constitution. However, if a constitution amendment is passed, then it is constitutional even if the founding fathers would have been against it. It is up to Americans to correct the errors and return the nation to the path of liberty laid out by the Founding Fathers.


I agree, but the prohibitionists say they don't need an amendment. 

We constitutionalists bring up the 18th amendment, and they dismiss it by saying drugs and alcohol are two different things, and they don't need an amendment to prohibit drugs.

Which then of course brings us to the next question, where do they get the authority to prohibit drugs if they don't need an amendment?? Most of them don't even know the answer, I think it was Katz who posted a couple of laws from 1907, but there have been many laws passed going back into the 1800's - the question is, where do those laws get their Constitutional authority??

If it is trade with a foreign nation, that's an easy one, no one argues that the FedGov does not have the authority to regulate and/or prohibit trade with a foreign nation. So taking out the foreign component, prohibition is justified under the _necessary and proper clause,_ which brings us to the interpretation of the clause.

As I, and others have been pointing out, the progressive interpretation is ridiculous, and I won't rehash it here, I'm sure you skimmed through the arguments.

So the prohibitionists like Ghost, Dan, Jim, et al... when confronted with the illogic of the progressive interpretation they subscribe to, they react with venom and hair-on-fire antics, name calling, and the whole shebang... when perseverence chases them out of that tactic, they have come out and said the Constitution can be anything anyone wants it to be, and therefore everything and anything is Constitutional - which is, of course, more acceptance of progressive ideology.

So if they keep citing progressive interpretations, and fall back on progressive ideologies to justify their positions, isn't it reasonable to associate them as being progressives, who don't care about the Constitution or the rule of law??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for amendments - yes, it is the mechanism by which our founders gave us the ability to change the Constitution, no argument there; but of course it isn't a simple majority that can change it, it takes a super-majority to get anything changed.

This was done deliberatly so as to prevent anything frivolous or carried on the wings of emotion from being added to or subtracted from the Constitution. Of course much of the progressive agenda would never have been able to get over the amendment process hurdles - hence, the need to simply rewrite it by butchering the meanings of words.

To this day, the progressives are able to indoctrinate generation after generation of Amerikan kids into the ideology of "the living Constitution", i.e. a Constitution that means anything to anyone for any purpose.

It would seem that that ideological poison has seeped into the reasoning of many "conservatives" these days.

I am not assigning this understanding to them - they have stated that they hold these positions themselves, and that is where we are now in the discussion.

P.S. Of course they deny everything they've said, then they say it again, and deny it again  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## michaelr

> Anarcho-libertarianism is a CULT, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.


What's that you say, we should all be boot lickers? No thanks!

----------


## michaelr

> You hit on one of the problems of  libertarians that frequent this forum are all about.
> 
> Like liberals that constantly claim obobo is good because Bush was bad.  Nonsense.  One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Same with our drooling libertarians.  As they mistakenly see it, you either MUST agree with them in all things, or you absolutely must agree with the left.
> 
> So many times I have said to libertarians to I agree with much, not all, that they stand for and if they really want to make progress, THEY, not me, have to clean up THEIR own act.
> 
> What happens?  I'm called a liberal progressive statist.  One can only imagine how much that makes me want to help libertarians even agreeing with many of their positions.
> ...


You have the opertunity to set the record straight. This can be quick. Name five federal agencies that you'd shut tomorrow.

----------


## wist43

> What's that you say, we should all be boot lickers? No thanks!


Isn't it amazing that "conservatives" are now calling constitutionalists "cultists"??

This thread has been very enlightening... there was a time I would have thought Ghost and Jim reasonable men, but for the sake one little issue like pot smoking, they are willing to sell out freedom now and forever.

I find that absolutely amazing.

----------

Invayne (04-10-2014),michaelr (04-10-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Isn't it amazing that "conservatives" are now calling constitutionalists "cultists"??
> 
> This thread has been very enlightening... there was a time I would have thought Ghost and Jim reasonable men, but for the sake one little issue like pot smoking, they are willing to sell out freedom now and forever.
> 
> I find that absolutely amazing.


It saddens me. It kinda takes hope away.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> It saddens me. It kinda takes hope away.


You may not see it as such right now, but if you come to your senses you'll see I'm doing you a FAVOUR!!!!

I'm dissuading you from wasting your time chasing unicorns and shadows and adhering to an empty, unhelpful, bastardized ideology of no certain parentage and no future at all.

Once you realize that, THEN you can operate on a more realistic level and actually contribute to accomplishing your goals by being part of a more vigorous and intellectually more respectable and powerful movement.

The Conservative Movement.

----------


## michaelr

> You may not see it as such right now, but if you come to your senses you'll see I'm doing you a FAVOUR!!!!
> 
> I'm dissuading you from wasting your time chasing unicorns and shadows and adhering to an empty, unhelpful, bastardized ideology of no certain parentage and no future at all.
> 
> Once you realize that, THEN you can operate on a more realistic level and actually contribute to accomplishing your goals by being part of a more vigorous and intellectually more respectable and powerful movement.
> 
> The Conservative Movement.


Dude, there are no such thing as unicorns, you're stoned or something. I'll never take advise from you or any other inferior!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Dude, there are no such thing as unicorns


EXACTLY!!!!!!! That's just my point!!!!

----------


## michaelr

> EXACTLY!!!!!!! That's just my point!!!!


My point is simple Ghost. I consider you inferior, therefore you have nothing to offer me. You can keep your advise, and your opinion of me to yourself.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You hit on one of the problems of  libertarians that frequent this forum are all about.
> 
> Like liberals that constantly claim obobo is good because Bush was bad.  Nonsense.  One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> Same with our drooling libertarians.  As they mistakenly see it, you either MUST agree with them in all things, or you absolutely must agree with the left.
> 
> So many times I have said to libertarians to I agree with much, not all, that they stand for and if they really want to make progress, THEY, not me, have to clean up THEIR own act.
> 
> What happens?  I'm called a liberal progressive statist.  One can only imagine how much that makes me want to help libertarians even agreeing with many of their positions.
> ...




Exactly, I've challenged libertarians on drug laws. I said they could have all the hard drugs that they want, if they give any expectation of mandatory medical treatment for dopers. They wanted the drugs and the welfare state safety net. LOL!!!!!!!!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> My point is simple Ghost. I consider you inferior, therefore you have nothing to offer me. You can keep your advise, and your opinion of me to yourself.


Sometimes you can learn things even from 'inferiors'. :Thumbsup20:

----------


## michaelr

> Exactly, I've challenged libertarians on drug laws. I said they could have all the hard drugs that they want, if they give any expectation of mandatory medical treatment for dopers. They wanted the drugs and the welfare state safety net. LOL!!!!!!!!


Do gun laws help? Do drug laws? No, and no! Those are facts.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I am a conservative libertarian, an old school con. 
> 
> I may have mistaken some of your pro-police state stances as being pro-large government. It's easy and natural to do. We can clear the air. 
> 
> Vouchers BTW are still beholding to the dept of education standards. I don't support them, the schools are the domain of the states, and screw the rest. 
> 
> I never hear you complain about monetary policies, therefore I figure that you appreciate the great job the scum federal reserve is doing. 
> 
> I never hear you speak ill of free trade, or the trade deficits, which I believe are record again. 
> ...


Set the record straight? YOU just admitted making up a lot of stuff about me. YOU clear the air and apologize for your false and baseless accusations.

Then, if you have a question of me- ask it. I'll not cower away like a volunterist.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Do gun laws help? Do drug laws? No, and no! Those are facts.


I'll hold my answer until you clear the air, Michael.

----------


## michaelr

> Set the record straight? YOU just admitted making up a lot of stuff about me. YOU clear the air and apologize for your false and baseless accusations.
> 
> Then, if you have a question of me- ask it. I'll not cower away like a volunterist.


I'm not playing your game tonight. Set the record straight if you wish. I gave you lots of issues. As far as I can, you're a big government pro-police state statist.

----------


## michaelr

> I'll hold my answer until you clear the air, Michael.


I cleared the air. You're really into dodging the issues today. Do you need some time to think?

----------


## Maximatic

> Set the record straight? YOU just admitted making up a lot of stuff about me. YOU clear the air and apologize for your false and baseless accusations.


You're complaining about someone making shit up about you? That's rich.




> Then, if you have a question of me- ask it. I'll not cower away like a volunterist.


You live in you're own little world, don't you? Should I recap that exchange again, put it all in the same post so everyone can see, *again*, what a ground shifting, pathetic liar you are?

----------

michaelr (04-10-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

It would be better if you post whatever proof you have rather than call someone a liar.

----------


## Maximatic

> It would be better if you post whatever proof you have rather than call someone a liar.


What's wrong with asking him if he wants me to prove him to be a liar first?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not playing your game tonight. Set the record straight if you wish. I gave you lots of issues. As far as I can, you're a big government pro-police state statist.


You made up a lot of stuff about me. Say you are sorry, and ask me your questions. That's just manners, man.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I cleared the air. You're really into dodging the issues today. Do you need some time to think?


No, ask away.

----------


## michaelr

> You made up a lot of stuff about me. Say you are sorry, and ask me your questions. That's just manners, man.


What did I make up about you that has you so offended? Provide a qoute with link please, thanks bunches......

----------


## DonGlock26

> You're complaining about someone making shit up about you? That's rich.
> 
> 
> 
> You live in you're own little world, don't you? Should I recap that exchange again, put it all in the same post so everyone can see, *again*, what a ground shifting, pathetic liar you are?


I asked for you to prove your points that make up your argument in this thread without your usual cut and paste games. You disappeared.

----------


## michaelr

> No, ask away.


You dodged your chance to set the record straight, then failed to answer two questions.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What did I make up about you that has you so offended? Provide a qoute with link please, thanks bunches......


You already admitted just making things up with no evidence. That's wrong. We have our differences, but that gives you no right to just make things up. So, be a man and apologize for going overboard. I understand your passion, and I would accept your apology. Then, we can move on to any questions that you may have. 

If you can't admit that you went a bit overboard, then we are done.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You dodged your chance to set the record straight, then failed to answer two questions.


I'm here. Apologize and ask away.

----------


## michaelr

> You already admitted just making things up with no evidence. That's wrong. We have our differences, but that gives you no right to just make things up. So, be a man and apologize for going overboard. I understand your passion, and I would accept your apology. Then, we can move on to any questions that you may have. 
> 
> If you can't admit that you went a bit overboard, then we are done.


I didn't admit to anything. I said if I was wrong I'd apologize, then allowed you a chance to set the record straight. Now again, this time put up, what did I say that has you so upset? Provide wuotes and links. Thank you!

----------


## michaelr

> I'm here. Apologize and ask away.


Apologize for what? Quotes and links please. Thank you.

I said wasn't playing games. Put up, or you're on ignore for a day or two, and you tarnish your reputation.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I didn't admit to anything. I said if I was wrong I'd apologize, then allowed you a chance to set the record straight. Now again, this time put up, what did I say that has you so upset? Provide wuotes and links. Thank you!


You've admitted to just assuming all kinds of falsehoods and making accusations with no evidence, just because we disagree on law and order issues. Now, I've been generous in accepting that as just going a little overboard. You can apologize for making baseless charges.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Apologize for what? Quotes and links please. Thank you.
> 
> I said wasn't playing games. Put up, or you're on ignore for a day or two, and you tarnish your reputation.


You know what you did. Everyone can see that you just made up baseless charges based on wild assumptions. You've already admitted it. Just man up, and say that you went overboard with the charges without any evidence. Then, you can ask away.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

You know what's happening here now?

The crazy anarcho-libertarians have been crushed and humiliated, and how they are desperate and out for sheer blood. They now slander and intimidate because they lost the argument. Nice! Shows you what manner of people these are...no better than the most out-there progressives by instinct. :Angry20:

----------


## DonGlock26

> He didn't label you. You did that. Registering as a republican doesn't mean you're a conservative. I see this all the time with neocons. You people are actually pretty damn liberal. You don't mind a runaway government, in fact you defend it. You don't mind debt and deficits. You support the public school systems. The federal reserve doesn't seem to bother you. You allow then  tell us that we should follow laws made by bureaucracies. The militarized police state turns you on, and I can go on all day. Those philosophies are identical to any liberals.


Unless you have proof of all of these charges, you need to apologize for going overboard. Then, we can move on.

The best way to know my positions is to ask me.

----------


## Mordent

This country is divided. Libertarians, conservatives, and republicans are more aligned, politically, than we are in opposition. I'd hate to see the lack of libtards on this site result in us fracturing an alliance that will be necessary to defeat our mutual enemy.

----------

NuYawka (04-11-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You know what's happening here now?
> 
> The crazy anarcho-libertarians have been crushed and humiliated, and how they are desperate and out for sheer blood. They now slander and intimidate because they lost the argument. Nice! Shows you what manner of people these are...no better than the most out-there progressives by instinct.


I just want succinct proofs for the volunteerist's argument and a simple apology from an overzealous libertarian-conservative.

 I don't think that is unreasonable.

----------


## michaelr

> He didn't label you. You did that. Registering as a republican doesn't mean you're a conservative. I see this all the time with neocons. You people are actually pretty damn liberal. You don't mind a runaway government, in fact you defend it. You don't mind debt and deficits. You support the public school systems. The federal reserve doesn't seem to bother you. You allow then  tell us that we should follow laws made by bureaucracies. The militarized police state turns you on, and I can go on all day. Those philosophies are identical to any liberals.





> He placed my name on a political scale that labeled me as tending towards an extreme statist position. Now, he's ducking the questioning of his argument. 
> 
> How am I a liberal? I hope you won't hide from me like he is.
> 
> I defend a run away gov't? How? 
> 
> I don't mind debt and deficits? Post your proof here. 
> 
> I'd support public school vouchers. An educated public makes the nation's military and economy powerful and protects the constitutional republic. That is the common welfare.
> ...





> I am a conservative libertarian, an old school con. 
> 
> I may have mistaken some of your pro-police state stances as being pro-large government. It's easy and natural to do. We can clear the air. 
> 
> Vouchers BTW are still beholding to the dept of education standards. I don't support them, the schools are the domain of the states, and screw the rest. 
> 
> I never hear you complain about monetary policies, therefore I figure that you appreciate the great job the scum federal reserve is doing. 
> 
> I never hear you speak ill of free trade, or the trade deficits, which I believe are record again. 
> ...





> Set the record straight? YOU just admitted making up a lot of stuff about me. YOU clear the air and apologize for your false and baseless accusations.
> 
> Then, if you have a question of me- ask it. I'll not cower away like a volunterist.





> I'm not playing your game tonight. Set the record straight if you wish. I gave you lots of issues. As far as I can, you're a big government pro-police state statist.





> You already admitted just making things up with no evidence. That's wrong. We have our differences, but that gives you no right to just make things up. So, be a man and apologize for going overboard. I understand your passion, and I would accept your apology. Then, we can move on to any questions that you may have. 
> 
> If you can't admit that you went a bit overboard, then we are done.





> I'm here. Apologize and ask away.





> I didn't admit to anything. I said if I was wrong I'd apologize, then allowed you a chance to set the record straight. Now again, this time put up, what did I say that has you so upset? Provide wuotes and links. Thank you!





> Apologize for what? Quotes and links please. Thank you.
> 
> I said wasn't playing games. Put up, or you're on ignore for a day or two, and you tarnish your reputation.





> You've admitted to just assuming all kinds of falsehoods and making accusations with no evidence, just because we disagree on law and order issues. Now, I've been generous in accepting that as just going a little overboard. You can apologize for making baseless charges.





> You know what you did. Everyone can see that you just made up baseless charges based on wild assumptions. You've already admitted it. Just man up, and say that you went overboard with the charges without any evidence. Then, you can ask away.


This is our argument, I think I got it all. You'll notice I didn't admit to anything. I stand by the post that started this, until you set the record straight. I judge you by your words, that's all you own here. I stand solid by my opinion of you. Now, again, if you'd like to set the record straight, I'll respond appropriately. Thank you!

----------



----------


## michaelr

> Unless you have proof of all of these charges, you need to apologize for going overboard. Then, we can move on.
> 
> The best way to know my positions is to ask me.


Read my last post!

----------


## DonGlock26

> This country is divided. Libertarians, conservatives, and republicans are more aligned, politically, than we are in opposition. I'd hate to see the lack of libtards on this site result in us fracturing an alliance that will be necessary to defeat our mutual enemy.


Agreed. I have noticed that the anarcho-capitalists are very hostile towards conservatives. They could very well be progressives masquerading as something else.

The libertarians can be anti-conservative, but to a lesser degree.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I have ZERO problems with classic libertarians, I have absorbed a good deal of influence from them, from as far back as the Milton Friedman series 'Free To Choose' was on TV, and the subsequent book.

Modern conservatism would be inconceivable without its libertarian influence, it's part of all of us, as it should be.

But THESE people, the anarcho-libertarians--I'm sure I no longer need to name them now, they are well known--are a dangerous heresy and a loud, lunatic and  tiny minority. They need to be pushed back under that rotten log they crawled out from under. They are NOT good for us and the cause. They are toxic.

----------


## DonGlock26

> This is our argument, I think I got it all. You'll notice I didn't admit to anything. I stand by the post that started this, until you set the record straight. I judge you by your words, that's all you own here. I stand solid by my opinion of you. Now, again, if you'd like to set the record straight, I'll respond appropriately. Thank you!


Stand by it? You've admitted that it is baseless. I'm not going to defend myself from your baseless charges. You were out of line. Admit that you overstepped by doign that and apologize. Then, if you want to ask for my positions, I'll be happy to oblige. I'm not going anywhere, but understand this- I'm not the one who made up baseless charges, admitted doing so, and then refuses to apologize.

----------


## michaelr

> Agreed. I have noticed that the anarcho-capitalists are very hostile towards conservatives. They could very well be progressives masquerading as something else.
> 
> The libertarians can be anti-conservative, but to a lesser degree.


This isn't specifically toward you, but yea, so called cons these days are just big government suck ups that would rather lie and dodge then discuss and try the truth. We have suck ups that must love Obma, I mean he gives them everything they want, he happens to have a ''D'' next to his name.  But free trade, debt, all of it, including wars, these so called cons are getting it, and they support it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I have ZERO problems with classic libertarians, I have absorbed a good deal of influence from them, from as far back as the Milton Friedman series 'Free To Choose' was on TV, and the subsequent book.
> 
> Modern conservatism would be inconceivable without its libertarian influence, it's part of all of us, as it should be.
> 
> But THESE people, the anarcho-libertarians--I'm sure I no longer need to name them now, they are well known--are a dangerous heresy and a loud, lunatic and  tiny minority. They need to be pushed back under that rotten log they crawled out from under. They are NOT good for us and the cause. They are toxic.


There use to be a few more here, but they cleared out when their progressive collectivist agenda was exposed.

----------


## michaelr

> Stand by it? You've admitted that it is baseless. I'm not going to defend myself from your baseless charges. You were out of line. Admit that you overstepped by doign that and apologize. Then, if you want to ask for my positions, I'll be happy to oblige. I'm not going anywhere, but understand this- I'm not the one who made up baseless charges, admitted doing so, and then refuses to apologize.


Where did I do that? In asking you to set your record straight? Are you kidding? 

From what I see, they ain't baseless and you refuse to tell me why they are!

----------


## DonGlock26

> Where did I do that? In asking you to set your record straight? Are you kidding? 
> 
> From what I see, they ain't baseless and you refuse to tell me why they are!


What do you see? What is your proof? You admitted to making assumptions. Just admit that you F-ed up and let's move on.

I'm interested in the free trade thing.

----------


## michaelr

> There use to be a few more here, but they cleared out when their progressive collectivist agenda was exposed.


You people are the collectivist and progressives! Your support for the war on drugs and your prancing over the police state alone tells us that!

----------


## michaelr

> What do you see? What is your proof? You admitted to making assumptions. Just admit that you F-ed up and let's move on.
> 
> I'm interested in the free trade thing.


I get it from what little posting you do on these subject in combination with your obsession for the nanny state! 

The free trade thing, that ties directly to you obsession with your nanny state. Like I said, set the record straight if I,m wrong! Show me DonGlock26 denounce free trade and I'll apologize for that. Tell me how bad it is and why. Simple stuff huh?

----------


## DonGlock26

> You people are the collectivist and progressives! Your support for the war on drugs and your prancing over the police state alone tells us that!


Where is your proof that I support the war on drugs? You just can't stop yourself can you?

----------


## michaelr

> Where is your proof that I support the war on drugs? You just can't stop yourself can you?


You have posts on this board supporting it....are you shitting me?

----------


## michaelr

@DonGlock26 i'll see you in 24 hours, this is getting to weird. I thought you had honor!

----------


## NuYawka

lol 




>> (New signature) Be Sure to Taste Your Words Before You Spit Them Out

----------


## DonGlock26

> I get it from what little posting you do on these subject in combination with your obsession for the nanny state! 
> 
> The free trade thing, that ties directly to you obsession with your nanny state. Like I said, set the record straight if I,m wrong! Show me DonGlock26 denounce free trade and I'll apologize for that. Tell me how bad it is and why. Simple stuff huh?


So, a lack of posting equals evidence and proof? (Hypothetical example ahead)You must be a pedophile rights supporter or pro-beastiality, then because I have never read a post by you that it anti-pedophile or anti-beastuality. See how bizarre your logic is???

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I loath the Nanny state. That's just nuts.

I'd like to discuss free trade with you, but we have to clear up this issue first.

You are already wrong because of your actions. There's no undoing the past. All that you can do is apologize and move on.

Look, I already said that I would accept your apology. If I don't then I would be a liar in front of the Pub. That ain't going to happen.

I promise to immediately move on to your questions.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You have posts on this board supporting it....are you shitting me?


Is this where you disappear too?

----------


## DonGlock26

> @DonGlock26 i'll see you in 24 hours,


I guess so.

----------


## Taylor

> Unfortunately Tay doesn't understand even the basics of governmental systems. I asked her to explain the difference between republics and democracies - a very basic civics question for anyone who lives in a republic - she didn't even understand the question.
> 
> I suppose it wouldn't matter if such ignorant people could admit they were ignorant and refrained from participating in elections - but of course they have been pumped full of self esteem every day of their precious lives, and couldn't possibly be ignorant of anything, could they??
> 
> In the end, ignorant people who do vote, have to be considered statists even if they don't realize it, or understand why. They have to be considered statists b/c they are invariably easy to manipulate into accepting statist solutions to statist created problems.
> 
> It's sad, but Tay represents the norm amoung young people today. She might be a nice kid for all I know, but en masse ignorance is dangerous - very dangerous.


Yeah you're pretty full of yourself it seems, especially after reading some of your condescending comments on this topic.

----------


## squidward

> Yeah you're pretty full of yourself it seems, especially after reading some of your condescending comments on this topic.


your ignorance of a topic does not make one who is educated on the topic,  "full of himself". 
Don't get bitter, get better.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014),wist43 (04-10-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Yeah you're pretty full of yourself it seems, especially after reading some of your condescending comments on this topic.


No offense intended Tay, and none taken... care to explain the republics vs democracies question??  :Smile: 

It's a simple question, that I asked you several times... one time, you said 'wait a sec, let me go look at your (my) question', and you came back and gave a non-answer.

My frustration with almost all Amerikans these days is that they don't understand basic civics, governance, or history. Things that are critical to the survival of our liberty were commonly understood among the citizenry when I was growing up. Republics vs Democracies is one such topic.

If you don't understand the differences between the two - should you, or anyone who doesn't understand the differences between the two, be voting?? Nothing personal, just common sense understanding of the governmental system you live within.

You have to remember, it isn't just your rights, and your liberty at stake, it is mine, and my children's, and your children's, and posterity who we will never know. It is principle. It isn't a game - and people do die. Screw it up, and millions will die - it will be history repeated.

----------

NuYawka (04-10-2014)

----------


## wist43

> your ignorance of a topic does not make one who is educated on the topic,  "full of himself". 
> Don't get bitter, get better.


I was having a PM conversation with fyrenza earlier today, and as I told her - I used to hold some of the views espoused by Ghost, Jim, and the others. I was young, in my teens and early 20's - already a "conservative", and probably more learned than most Americans even at that age; but I was a voracious reader, and read everything I could get my hands on.

It took several years of exploring other points of view, reading much more of our Founding Fathers and history, and maturing in general before I began to change my views. It came down to intellectual honesty. If you hold a view that is proven to be erroneous, if you are an honest person, do you have any choice but to change your view??

And so I changed my views.

The federal drug issue is an excellent example, and as I've tried to explain to conservatives, it could serve the cause of liberty very well. 

I used to be much more of a "law and order" guy... I was generally supportive of Federal drug laws, even though I myself smoked more than my share of pot when I was younger. Where I ended up changing my view on the subject came when I became more educated on the constitutional arguments which supported prohibition on the federal level.

It became quite clear to me that the authority for federal drug laws did not exist within the enumerated powers, but only by tortured interpretations that served as the open gate for the liberal/progressive agenda. So to be honest and consistent, I did the right thing and changed my view.

Now, all these years later, I would very much like to smoke pot again for health reasons. I deal with a great deal of pain every day, and pot is the best medicine. I don't smoke but infrequently b/c of its illegality, and as such I am forced to take "legal" pain pills. Well, the pills have side effects, are themselves narcotics, and don't do the job effectively.

My personal wishes notwithstanding - if the prohibitionists would simply drop the federalization argument, we could actually have a discussion about the issue itself on the state level - where the argument belongs. We could actually gauge the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness of the different states as each state would likely have far ranging legislation on the books. Eventually it would become clear which policies worked, and which didn't. 

Some states might adopt some policies and prohibitions, and others might not... but it is, and always should be a state issue.

----------

michaelr (04-10-2014)

----------


## wist43

Okay fellas - let's set aside the 2nd amendment, b/c I think we're all in agreement on that.

Let's try this question  :Smile: 

If Obamacare is constitutional, the Patriot Act is constitutional, the "war on drugs" is constitutional, Social Security is constitutional, Medicare is constitutional, undeclared wars are constitutional... of course this could go on endlessly  :Smile: 

If all of those things are constitutional - what then is unconstitutional??

----------


## Dan40

> Okay fellas - let's set aside the 2nd amendment, b/c I think we're all in agreement on that.
> 
> Let's try this question 
> 
> If Obamacare is constitutional, the Patriot Act is constitutional, the "war on drugs" is constitutional, Social Security is constitutional, Medicare is constitutional, undeclared wars are constitutional... of course this could go on endlessly 
> 
> If all of those things are constitutional - what then is unconstitutional??


See you continue to do it.  When I and others disagree with you on your extremely narrow self serving interpretation of the Constitution.  That and only that is what we are doing.  We are not saying anything IS Constirutional, or that we agree with what liberals have done to the Constitution.  I have a number of times suggested that you forget about the lame ass unimportant issue of marijuana.  It is childish and unimportant.  I have asked you to rage against the unACa, and YOU have ridiculed me.

Try actually using your brain.  Disagreeing with you because your position is ridiculous is NOT agreeing with liberals, progressives, statists, the left, clowns in a circus, or the pizza delivery man.  It is only disagreeing with your narrow position and tunnel vision.

Shin Tzu was not always right.

----------


## michaelr

> Okay fellas - let's set aside the 2nd amendment, b/c I think we're all in agreement on that.
> 
> Let's try this question 
> 
> If Obamacare is constitutional, the Patriot Act is constitutional, the "war on drugs" is constitutional, Social Security is constitutional, Medicare is constitutional, undeclared wars are constitutional... of course this could go on endlessly 
> 
> If all of those things are constitutional - what then is unconstitutional??


Questioning the need of the behemoth government?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I was having a PM conversation with fyrenza earlier today, and as I told her - I used to hold some of the views espoused by Ghost, Jim, and the others. I was young, in my teens and early 20's - already a "conservative", and probably more learned than most Americans even at that age; but I was a voracious reader, and read everything I could get my hands on.
> 
> It took several years of exploring other points of view, reading much more of our Founding Fathers and history, and maturing in general before I began to change my views. It came down to intellectual honesty. If you hold a view that is proven to be erroneous, if you are an honest person, do you have any choice but to change your view??
> 
> And so I changed my views.
> 
> The federal drug issue is an excellent example, and as I've tried to explain to conservatives, it could serve the cause of liberty very well. 
> 
> I used to be much more of a "law and order" guy... I was generally supportive of Federal drug laws, even though I myself smoked more than my share of pot when I was younger. Where I ended up changing my view on the subject came when I became more educated on the constitutional arguments which supported prohibition on the federal level.
> ...


I'm fine with that, but drugs are only one issue. If we do that, then we should also junk the entire welfare state. It is hopelessly broke anyway. 

If people want the liberty to shoot heroin, they can hardly expect the gov't to force hospitals or taxpayers to foot the bill for their medical outcomes.

They should be free to die in the gutter and be buried in a pauper's grave. 

How many libertarians are ready to say good bye to the safety net? Let's have a show of hands?

How many libertarians wouldn't give up their social security checks after they were paid what they put into the program along with a fair return?

----------


## michaelr

> I'm fine with that, but drugs are only one issue. If we do that, then we should also junk the entire welfare state. It is hopelessly broke anyway. 
> 
> If people want the liberty to shoot heroin, they can hardly expect the gov't to force hospitals or taxpayers to foot the bill for their medical outcomes.
> 
> They should be free to die in the gutter and be buried in a pauper's grave. 
> 
> How many libertarians are ready to say good bye to the safety net? Let's have a show of hands?
> 
> How many libertarians wouldn't give up their social security checks after they were paid what they put into the program along with a fair return?


I'll answer this one. I'd get rid of most of the safety net, on condition.

See, ZIRP and QE are making CEO'S of the TAX EXEMPT MULTINATIONALS and TAX EXEMPT TBTJail BANKS. Also those policies are job crushers. Add TARP and the rest of the unpaid bailouts makes things worse. People can't find work because of these very policies. Add free now, wow, you have a disaster. End all that welfare and cronyism first!!!! You would have my support all the way!

----------


## Maximatic

> Unless you have proof of all of these charges, you need to apologize for going overboard. Then, we can move on.
> The best way to know my positions is to ask me.


Oh shut the fuck up.




> It's a break from reality in favor of a fantasy.





> You both need to take a basic course in logic so you can learn to recognize valid reasoning. I started a thread about it. Since you would both require an introduction to the introductory course, that would be a good place for you to start. Then you can just ask questions, and I'll guide you through it.





> I've watched you fail in trying to answer basic questions about your fantasy. You have nothing to teach anyone here.





> Oh, you want to go back over that again? Link to it. I'll show you, for the third time, where your questions were answered. And, maybe you can take that question "how much would the remedy be?" to congress and ask them why they can't tell you how much the next judge to rule on a dispute between two private parties will award. Tell them that since they can't give you the amount, they must not know what they're doing





> I pointed out your use of fallacies. You can't tell us how your fantasy stateless society would function in the real world. Where would your fantasy judges come from? Who would pay them? Hahahaha!!!!!
> 
> I'll tell you what, why don't you try it right here. Tell us who would defend the borders, pave the roads, police society, and how it would all be voluntarily paid for in your own words. No cutting and pasting of some longed-winded philosophical rant about a fantasy world of what-ifs and could/shoulds.


Lie #1, 2 and 3: I did tell you how it would work. I told you where the Judges would come from, and who would pay them.

Notice the qualifications here. He's demanding a complete description of  system of governance but he doesn't want it to be long winded or philosophical, and he wants absolutely certain prescriptions. That is obviously not possible. The reason he adds those qualifications is that the explanation he demands has already been offered to him. He just refuses to read it. Or maybe he read it and just doesn't understand what he reads, I don't know. His questions don't look like the kind that someone who _has_ read it would ask, so I doubt he has.




> Post your argument here.





> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...u-need-to-know





> Originally Posted by Axiomatic
> 
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...u-need-to-know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/9330-All-you-need-to-know?p=273628&viewfull=1#post273628


The link above is to this post:




> Premise 2
> Premise 3
> Premise 4
> 
> I don't know why anyone would dispute the others, but go ahead if you want to.


Those three links are to the defenses of the three premises that could be controversial. The first argument I linked to is a condensed version of the series of arguments in this thread. I condensed it because no one wanted to begin to deal with the previous argument I posted, complaining that it was too long winded and philosophical.

He wanted a synopsis.
I gave him one. He said it was insufficient.
He wanted defenses.
I gave them to him. He said they were too long, and, 




> I'm asking YOU to state your proof for your statements. YOU provide part of a blog? That is unacceptable. YOU cannot prove your arguments in this thread by yourself? 
> 
> YOU brought a bunch of the regulars here and bail out when questioned? Epic fail.


a blog. A blog?????!?!?!? So fucking what?  The arguments *ARE* mine. The fact that I wrote them before DonkyKong asked for them makes them unacceptable? This is pathetic ass bitch shit! 




> I'm waiting for you to provide your proofs for your arguments in your own words in this thread. 
> 
> Please, no cut and pastes from other threads and no long-winded nonsensical dodges. Just explain how the points are true.





> I'm waiting for you to stop tailoring your questions so as to preclude the answers you've already been given.
> 
> Care to quantify your word count limit?





> You provided a link to your argument. I posted it here and asked for your proofs. So far, you haven't given us any in this thread. 
> 
> Just tell us why they are true without cutting and pasting. If you have such a great philosophy and such a strong argument for it, then you should easily be able to tell us why they are all true.
> 
> If you can't summarize why each point is true in a few sentences each, then your argument is garbage. Clear enough?


Lie #4: I did post the proofs. Now he insists that I write them out, again, in this thread. 

Remember? 



> No cutting and pasting


Fucking pathetic.




> I posted that argument last year. If you want to engage it, engage it where it is.





> You called us all here. You labeled some as statists. Here we are. Now is the time to defend this argument of yours or fail.
> If you fail to back it up now, your argument is the joke of the forum.


Are you fucking serious? You want me to prove that you're a statist?

In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] _Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism_.[1][2][3][4] 




> You're complaining about someone making shit up about you? That's rich.
> You live in you're own little world, don't you? Should I recap that  exchange again, put it all in the same post so everyone can see, *again*, what a ground shifting, pathetic liar you are?


 


> I asked for you to prove your points that make  up your argument in this thread without your usual cut and paste games.  You disappeared.


What a bitch.

----------

michaelr (04-11-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> This is our argument, I think I got it all. You'll notice I didn't admit to anything. I stand by the post that started this, until you set the record straight. I judge you by your words, that's all you own here. I stand solid by my opinion of you. Now, again, if you'd like to set the record straight, I'll respond appropriately. Thank you!


Oh look, someone else had to bring up the actual record to show what utter bullshit @DonGlock26 throws all over the forum. What a shock.

----------

michaelr (04-11-2014)

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

The point of this thread is what?  To insult forum members?

----------


## NuYawka

> This country is divided. Libertarians, conservatives, and republicans are more aligned, politically, than we are in opposition. I'd hate to see the lack of libtards on this site result in us fracturing an alliance that will be necessary to defeat our mutual enemy.


This is an exact microcosm of what is happening nationwide, and is dangerously close to fruition.

----------


## NuYawka

...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The point of this thread is what?  To insult forum members?


It appears so.  Still, it's amusing to see how others think.




> Oh shut the fuck up.





> Are you fucking serious? You want me to prove that you're a statist?





> What a bitch.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] _Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism_.


Agreed here.  Only disagreed that anyone who disagrees with you is a statist.  I don't believe "the state" should control economic or social policy.  There is a difference between being a playground monitor and dictating the play on the field.  Government is a tool of the people not the controller of them. The fact you and your fellow anarchists refuse to see that there are more than two positions here, more than just statism and anarchism, shows how narrowly you view things.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The point of this thread is what?  To insult forum members?


Basically. I have challenged the volunteerist OP who dislikes the idea of a state to post his argument here. He did not. I posted them from another thread. 

Then, I challenged him to defend his supporting points with proof point by point that they are true in a succinct manner and he has been unable to. 

So, this thread ultimately is about his failure to back up his dislike for the idea of a state.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'll answer this one. I'd get rid of* most* of the safety net, on condition.


Then, you are a progressive.

----------


## NuYawka

@DonGlock26 - 

I wonder how you would make any headway if you weren't to utilize labels while you 'debate'.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hahahah!!!  All that work to avoid actually having to give proofs for your points here in front of everyone in the Pub. 

Listen, if you were right, you should easily be able to defend your argument and offer proofs, but you really can't. All you can do is cut and paste the speculative writing of others or ramble on yourself about hypothetical societies. You made several claims in your points, and you have yet to prove them here in a succinct manner here when asked to. That is an epic failure on your part.

----------


## DonGlock26

> @DonGlock26 - 
> 
> I wonder how you would make any headway if you weren't to utilize labels while you 'debate'.


Did you note the OP title?

Um, you should really read the last several pages, if you are looking for labellers.

I'd love for the OP to offer succinct proofs for his argument's key points. He knows that the conservatives here would tear them to shreds.

----------

NuYawka (04-11-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> @DonGlock26 - 
> 
> I wonder how you would make any headway if you weren't to utilize labels while you 'debate'.


This was a "callout" thread.  It started with labeling people based on Ax's view of who is a "statist", a derogatory label since it is misused, and who is, by inference, a good guy.

----------


## Taylor

> No offense intended Tay, and none taken... care to explain the republics vs democracies question?? 
> 
> It's a simple question, that I asked you several times... one time, you said 'wait a sec, let me go look at your (my) question', and you came back and gave a non-answer.
> 
> My frustration with almost all Amerikans these days is that they don't understand basic civics, governance, or history. Things that are critical to the survival of our liberty were commonly understood among the citizenry when I was growing up. Republics vs Democracies is one such topic.
> 
> If you don't understand the differences between the two - should you, or anyone who doesn't understand the differences between the two, be voting?? Nothing personal, just common sense understanding of the governmental system you live within.
> 
> You have to remember, it isn't just your rights, and your liberty at stake, it is mine, and my children's, and your children's, and posterity who we will never know. It is principle. It isn't a game - and people do die. Screw it up, and millions will die - it will be history repeated.


a democracy is when the majority of people pretty much decide things based on if the majority thinks its best for the country, and a republic is when the constitution/laws/states decide it and cant be changed on a whim by the majority of the country without following the law or protecting the minority in some way.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> a democracy is when the majority of people pretty much decide things based on if the majority thinks its best for the country, and a republic is when the constitution/laws/states decide it and cant be changed on a whim by the majority of the country without following the law or protecting the minority in some way.



Sorry, close, but not correct.  Democracy is direct vote like a show of hands.  Republic is a representative vote where we vote for delegates and then those delegates decide.  A straight democracy works on the townhall level but at the State level, where it becomes more complicated.  Texas has about 25 million citizens.

Example; one side of the state wants to build a dam.  Doing so would raise the taxes of everyone.  Since you and I live on the other side of the state, all we see is taxes and no benefit.  A delegate who attends state meetings on the issue would learn that such a project would help everyone through increased electrical power resources, water conservation during drought which means lower food costs and a host of other benefits.  

A Constitutional Republic, which is what we have, is a Republic where all citizens are protected by set law such as our Bill of Rights.  Therefore, although I may be against gay marriage, the fact the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause states that all laws must be equally applied.  Ergo, regardless of my religious or other beliefs, I cannot seek to pass laws which benefit one group and not another for arbitrary reasons.

We can have a Constitutional Democracy or, as some countries have, a Constitutional Monarchy.

----------


## wist43

> I'm fine with that, but drugs are only one issue. If we do that, then we should also junk the entire welfare state. It is hopelessly broke anyway. 
> 
> If people want the liberty to shoot heroin, they can hardly expect the gov't to force hospitals or taxpayers to foot the bill for their medical outcomes.
> 
> They should be free to die in the gutter and be buried in a pauper's grave. 
> 
> How many libertarians are ready to say good bye to the safety net? Let's have a show of hands?
> 
> How many libertarians wouldn't give up their social security checks after they were paid what they put into the program along with a fair return?


I want rid of all "safety net" programs on the federal level - they're unconstitutional, just as Obamacare is unconstitutional, drug laws are unconstitutional, social security is unconstitutional, etc.

Each individual state can have whatever level of social saftey net they want, but they are on their own - no federal bailouts, as bailouts are unconstitutional, and irresonsible behavior of 1 state is not the responsibility of another state. States like California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois are all within sight of bankruptcy - they voted themselves into the mess they can get themselves out of it.

Federalism comes with states rights, which comes with responsibility. The beauty of our federal system is that with each layer of government that gets closer to the people, that level of government is more answerable to the people - and of course the reverse is true. 

People feel powerless against the monster that is the federal government b/c they are just one person in a pool of 300,000,000 million people - what does a centralized government give a shit about 1 person?? The answer is obvious, it doesn't care about anybody - it is an unwieldy bureauacracy that exists for its own benefit to the detriment of the people.

----------

Invayne (04-11-2014)

----------


## wist43

> See you continue to do it.  When I and others disagree with you on your extremely narrow self serving interpretation of the Constitution.  That and only that is what we are doing.  We are not saying anything IS Constirutional, or that we agree with what liberals have done to the Constitution.  I have a number of times suggested that you forget about the lame ass unimportant issue of marijuana.  It is childish and unimportant.  I have asked you to rage against the unACa, and YOU have ridiculed me.


The Constitution was intended to be narrow, just ask our Founding Fathers  :Wink: 

Narrow interpretation = limited government, i.e. a republican form of government that is restricted by a specifically empowering Constitution - "enumerated powers", remember??

Your waywardness is due to your acceptance of broad interpretations. Who are you to tell a liberal he can't have his unconstitutional program or agency, when he can simply point at you and say, "you're using the same interpretation of the Constitution I am for your drug agencies, who are you to tell me I can't have my slice of the pie"??

You have no comeback, b/c he is right. You're like two siblings - "mommy, Johnny has ice cream - I want ice cream too"!!!

You've agreed to a broadly interpreted Constitution - which is exactly the trap liberal/progressives have laid for you - you have no standing to complain about someone else's misuse of that broad interpretation.

If you do, you're a hypocrite.





> Shin Tzu was not always right.


Who is "Shin Tzu"??

Do you mean Sun Tzu??

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

NuYawka (04-11-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Then, you are a progressive.


You're a liar! Oh, I notice the dodge again. I gave you points of discussion, but in your typical childish fashion, you completely ignored them, and went right for the insult. Back on ignore!

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> You're a liar! Oh, I notice the dodge again. I gave you points of discussion, but in your typical childish fashion, you completely ignored them, and went right for the insult. Back on ignore!


Sorry, you admitted to supporting some of the gov't safety net. That makes you a progressive. Now, what safety net programs do you want to keep??

----------


## michaelr

> Sorry, you admitted to supporting some of the gov't safety net. That makes you a progressive. Now, what safety net programs do you want to keep??


People deserve a break, especially with people like you voting for crooks, liars, and traitors! You'd keep the federal reserve and their QE, you'd keep ZIRP, the bailouts, and the tax exemptions on the multinationals whilst the small businessman and the the rest of us get to pay for their multi trillion dollar annual welfare. You're Gad Damned right I'd give some to the people. You're a fascist, a statist, and boot licker. I stand for the people, you work and stand for the corporatist scum that is destroying the economy, then want your nations citizens to go with out.

----------


## Coolwalker

If a person is a fan of a particular football team, say the Redskins, and they are playing say the Cowboys and the Cowboys win and that person says "well the cowboys had all the right moves". That does not automatically make him a new Cowboy fan, likewise if there is a particular  government program that is a good program and a conservative likes it, that does not automatically make him a Liberal.

----------


## DonGlock26

> People deserve a break, especially with people like you voting for crooks, liars, and traitors! You'd keep the federal reserve and their QE, you'd keep ZIRP, the bailouts, and the tax exemptions on the multinationals whilst the small businessman and the the rest of us get to pay for their multi trillion dollar annual welfare. You're Gad Damned right I'd give some to the people. You're a fascist, a statist, and boot licker. I stand for the people, you work and stand for the corporatist scum that is destroying the economy, then want your nations citizens to go with out.


Give what? Taxpayer's money to the poor?

----------


## DonGlock26

> If a person is a fan of a particular football team, say the Redskins, and they are playing say the Cowboys and the Cowboys win and that person says "well the cowboys had all the right moves". That does not automatically make him a new Cowboy fan, likewise if there is a particular  government program that is a good program and a conservative likes it, that does not automatically make him a Liberal.

----------


## Coolwalker

> 


*
It's better than your attire...!!!!!!!!!!*

----------


## michaelr

> Give what? Taxpayer's money to the poor?


You're giving it to the rich, every penny of your debt is free for the banks, but you have to pay that. The multinationals don't pay taxes, yet they get 10's of billions in QE funds via the market, you pay that. Lets look at your logic. You'll pay the banks and corporations that don't even pay taxes trillions per year, but you want to scalp everyone else. How unrealistic is that? You support the hell out of corporate welfare, whilst robbing small business and the rest of us, you consider that some kind of conservatism, or you're to ignorant to know what you support, your choice!

----------


## wist43

Are we talking about Federal or state safety nets??

That's always got to be the line of demarkation.

Like the drug issue... can't have a logical or useful discussion on the topic unless and until you're talking about the proper governmental venue. Federal?? is not the proper venue; state?? Don's state may have no safety net, michael's state may have some...

You can agree to disagree when you view the issue in terms of federalism - when the issues are viewed as top-down, one size fits all government administered by a centralized bureauacracy?? Then we have mucho problemos... b/c there are no choices, only unaccountable bureaucrats wielding limitless force - which of course tends to piss people off  :Smile:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Are we talking about Federal or state safety nets??
> 
> That's always got to be the line of demarkation.
> 
> Like the drug issue... can't have a logical or useful discussion on the topic unless and until you're talking about the proper governmental venue. .....


Likewise with the definition of "safety net".  One man's wasteful "safety net" is another man's necessity for the common welfare.  

Example;  I believe our nation benefits from an educated, healthy and gainfully employed citizenry.   Educated, healthy and gainfully employed citizens are not only the best producers for our society, but provide the best source of revenue for taxes to reinvest into our infrastructure and national defense.  They also produce the best base for a pool of candidates who choose to serve their nation in the military.  Not because they have to, but because they want to do so.  A highly technical military reduces size of a national military, but also requires highly skilled and educated personnel to make it work.

Therefore, supporting public schools K-12, some form of health program such vaccinations, preventative care and emergency care and assistance in finding jobs provides a benefit to our national security structure many times more than its cost.  This means those programs aren't "safety nets", but programs supporting "the general welfare" as noted twice in the Constitution.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You're giving it to the rich, every penny of your debt is free for the banks, but you have to pay that. The multinationals don't pay taxes, yet they get 10's of billions in QE funds via the market, you pay that. Lets look at your logic. You'll pay the banks and corporations that don't even pay taxes trillions per year, but you want to scalp everyone else. How unrealistic is that? You support the hell out of corporate welfare, whilst robbing small business and the rest of us, you consider that some kind of conservatism, or you're to ignorant to know what you support, your choice!


I'm not giving shit. Why must you personalize every post???

My logic? You erect your own strawmen, label them as mine, and battle them like a whirling dervish.
It is really quite amusing. 

What you are revealing is that you support the redistribution of wealth and justify it by pointing out tax dodging schemes built into the tax code. It is still progressive wealth redistribution. You are a progressive who literally has fallen out of the closet and doesn't even realize it yet.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

----------


## michaelr

> I'm not giving shit. Why must you personalize every post???
> 
> My logic? You erect your own strawmen, label them as mine, and battle them like a whirling dervish.
> It is really quite amusing. 
> 
> What you are revealing is that you support the redistribution of wealth and justify it by pointing out tax dodging schemes built into the tax code. It is still progressive wealth redistribution. You are a progressive who literally has fallen out of the closet and doesn't even realize it yet.


You insult me, then ask why I personalize things. I made a generalization yesterday, and you went on all day how it was about you. I am giving you your way!

----------


## DonGlock26

> You insult me, then ask why I personalize things. I made a generalization yesterday, and you went on all day how it was about you. I am giving you your way!


A generalization? You made specific false, baseless claims about me and you have not apologized yet.

On the other hand, you have admitted to being for the redistribution of wealth by the state. That is a SOLID progressive position.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Preamble
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


THIS is why social programs have all been found constitutional.

That's doesn't mean that they're all good or ought to be done. That is open to all kinds of debate. It's a political matter, to be determined through political institutions.

That's where the anarcho-libertarians fail so consistently, as I've so often said: they want to--very wrongly--turn a matter of public policy and politics into a matter of constitutional law.

These things ARE constitutional. That doesn't mean that they're GOOD and ought to be done.

Apples and oranges!

----------


## michaelr

> A generalization? You made specific false, baseless claims about me and you have not apologized yet.
> 
> On the other hand, you have admitted to being for the redistribution of wealth by the state. That is a SOLID progressive position.


Boo hoo. Really, wealth redistribution, you mean like you're support for trillions in corporate welfare by taking from the rest of us, and allowing nothing from the poor? That type of redistribution. 

Look Glock, you're deflecting again, more, what ever, it's all you do. You're a statist liberal, and you are called on it. You rightfully belong at the top of the list. You're also extremely dishonest. You couldn't tell the truth if when it serves you.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> THIS is why social programs have all been found constitutional.
> 
> That's doesn't mean that they're all good or ought to be done. That is open to all kinds of debate. It's a political matter, to be determined through political institutions.


I agree that those statements were used to justify all sorts of programs.  Many, IMO, which were excessive.  Especially when they usurped the authority of the States in matters that did not present a Constitutional conflict.

The "Drug War" being one example.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I agree that those statements were used to justify all sorts of programs.  Many, IMO, which were excessive.  Especially when they usurped the authority of the States in matters that did not present a Constitutional conflict.
> 
> The "Drug War" being one example.


There's a TON of social programs that can stand being dialed back or removed altogether. 

But I certainly wouldn't remove them altogether. 

I believe in floors below which people ought not to be permitted to fall.

----------


## Maximatic

> The point of this thread is what?  To insult forum members?


If you find being a statist insulting then stop being a statist.

----------

michaelr (04-11-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Agreed here.  Only disagreed that anyone who disagrees with you is a statist.  I don't believe "the state" should control economic or social policy.  There is a difference between being a playground monitor and dictating the play on the field.  Government is a tool of the people not the controller of them. The fact you and your fellow anarchists refuse to see that there are more than two positions here, more than just statism and anarchism, shows how narrowly you view things.


I never contended that anyone who disagrees with me is a statist. 

I don't know any anarchist who thinks there are only two positions.

 If you want to complain about narrowmindedness, talk to the ones who think that anything outside the Republican-Democrat-continuum is not a valid position, who use words like "kook" to describe anyone outside of it.

----------


## Maximatic

> This was a "callout" thread.  It started with labeling people based on Ax's view of who is a "statist", a derogatory label since it is misused, and who is, by inference, a good guy.


You don't understand the definition, do you? If you think the government should control economic policy or social policy to any degree, you are a statist. 

It is a descriptive, not a derogatory, term, coined by anti-statists as a reference to non-anti-statists, aka statists.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> You don't understand the definition, do you? If you think the government should control economic policy or social policy to any degree, you are a statist. 
> 
> It is a descriptive, not a derogatory, term, coined by anti-statists as a reference to non-anti-statists, aka statists.
> 
> How many times does this need to be explained to you?



By your asinine definition, then, there never HAVE been non-statists, because even Coolidge, the most non-statist president of the 20th century, supported Prohibition.

We are ALL statists and always have been, more or less.

When a term is used so promiscuously it gets robbed of all significance.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Boo hoo. Really, wealth redistribution, you mean like you're support for trillions in corporate welfare by taking from the rest of us, and allowing nothing from the poor? That type of redistribution. 
> 
> Look Glock, you're deflecting again, more, what ever, it's all you do. You're a statist liberal, and you are called on it. You rightfully belong at the top of the list. You're also extremely dishonest. You couldn't tell the truth if when it serves you.


I'm deflecting nothing. You are on the record as supporting redistribution of wealth social welfare programs.  Tax schemes of the crony capitalists and the federal govt lackeys have nothing to do with your position. You are grasping at straws now.

----------


## Maximatic

> You're giving it to the rich, every penny of your debt is free for the banks, but you have to pay that. The multinationals don't pay taxes, yet they get 10's of billions in QE funds via the market, you pay that. Lets look at your logic. You'll pay the banks and corporations that don't even pay taxes trillions per year, but you want to scalp everyone else. How unrealistic is that? You support the hell out of corporate welfare, whilst robbing small business and the rest of us, you consider that some kind of conservatism, or you're to ignorant to know what you support, your choice!


Why can't you just say you oppose both programs and policies, and would be happy to see both or either one completely eliminated?

----------


## michaelr

> Why can't you just say you oppose both programs and policies, and would be happy to see both or either one completely eliminated?


I don't think completely eliminating social programs for all the poor is necessary or wanted in this country by anyone. It's an easy thing to say, but think about it. Not everyone can work, ...hell man look at the LPR, over 100 million Americans not working, think they're just lazy? Really? 

No, I wont say that because I don't believe that, and I wont lie to appease anyone.

----------


## Maximatic

> By your asinine definition, then, there never HAVE been non-statists, because even Coolidge, the most non-statist president of the 20th century, supported Prohibition.
> 
> We are ALL statists and always have been, more or less.
> 
> When a term is used so promiscuously it gets robbed of all significance.


That's what the word means. If you don't like it, don't use it.

----------


## wist43

> Preamble
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;





> THIS is why social programs have all been found constitutional.
> 
> That's doesn't mean that they're all good or ought to be done. That is open to all kinds of debate. It's a political matter, to be determined through political institutions.
> 
> That's where the anarcho-libertarians fail so consistently, as I've so often said: they want to--very wrongly--turn a matter of public policy and politics into a matter of constitutional law.
> 
> These things ARE constitutional. That doesn't mean that they're GOOD and ought to be done.
> 
> Apples and oranges!


"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,* it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."* 

- James Madison, _Father of our Constitution
_February 7, 1792, Cod Fishery Bill, testifying against subsidies

"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."* 

- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleten, January 21, 1792.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there are many such quotes from our Founding Fathers, and in the spirit of full disclosure, there were some discenting views, such as that of Alexander Hamilton.

Fortunately, Madison's view held sway for most of our republic's history... but of course, crud creeps, and by the time we got to _The New Deal_ it was _"Katie bar the door"_...

Logically, and as most of our Founding Fathers argued in voluminous writings, if _"the general welfare clause"_ is a grant of power, then our Constitution should consist only of those words, i.e. it means everything, and no more be said.

So too with the _necessary and proper clause,_ if it means the FedGov can do anything it deems necessary and proper, then the government is granted limitless power - which has proven to be the case as our government continues to run amok, with no hope of ever checking it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As it seems you guys contend for these to be grants of power - then you are agreeing to limitless government, as James Madison logically pointed out.

You are agreeing to a "_metamorphosis of the Constitution",_ which has cleared the way for unconstrained government. Unconstrained governments do what unconstrained governments do - they rape the people of their rights, wealth, property, and liberty.

Since you agree with these ground rules, how then can you complain when the obvious and inevitable happens??

----------

Invayne (04-11-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I don't think completely eliminating social programs for all the poor is necessary or wanted in this country by anyone. It's an easy thing to say, but think about it. Not everyone can work, ...hell man look at the LPR, over 100 million Americans not working, think they're just lazy? Really? 
> 
> No, I wont say that because I don't believe that, and I wont lie to appease anyone.


_STATIST!!!!!!!!!! SOCIALIST!!!!!! COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_ :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## michaelr

> _STATIST!!!!!!!!!! SOCIALIST!!!!!! COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_


Grow up!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Grow up!


Hey, don't look at me, according to The Ax Man's definition that is EXACTLY what you are!

Join the club, michaelr! How does it feel to take a seat beside a son of Carlo Marx like me? :Cool20:

----------


## wist43

Ghost, you call yourself... whatever, a neocon, or a conservative... whatever, it doesn't matter what label you want to wear.

Where the rubber meets the road is - you agree with progressive interpretations of the Constitution, which have opened the flood gates for unlimited government.

Our Founding Fathers who wrote the bloody thing argued that those interpretations were obviously invalid and violated the very nature of the Constitution and the principles of liberty.

Nobody is forcing you to accept those interpretations - you could "man up" and stand firm against them, instead you join hands with the liberals/progressives and lend your support to the supposed validity of what are obviously absurd interpretations.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Would YOU ALL STOP IT.   You don't get to harass people on this board about what you think they are!!!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Ghost, you call yourself... whatever, a neocon, or a conservative... whatever, it doesn't matter what label you want to where.
> 
> Where the rubber meets the road is - you agree with progressive interpretations of the Constitution, which have opened the flood gates for unlimited government.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers who wrote the bloody thing argued that those interpretations were obviously invalid and violated the very nature of the Constitution and the principles of liberty.
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to accept those interpretations - you could "man up" and stand firm against them, instead you join hands with the liberals/progressives and lend your support to the supposed validity of what are obviously absurd interpretations.


The gates to big government have always been open, but voters can always choose whether to walk through it or not.

----------


## Maximatic

> I don't think completely eliminating social programs for all the poor is necessary or wanted in this country by anyone. It's an easy thing to say, but think about it. Not everyone can work, ...hell man look at the LPR, over 100 million Americans not working, think they're just lazy? Really? 
> 
> No, I wont say that because I don't believe that, and I wont lie to appease anyone.


Is that position consistent with the constitution? Maybe there are some states with constitutions that allow for government charity, but the Constitution of the US does not. If the wellbeing of the disadvantaged can be used to justify a safety net, it can be used to justify anything else that can be said to benefit the disadvantaged. If a government is not restrained by its constitution it is unrestrained. You can't accept that the constitution can be disregarded for legislation of which you approve, and expect anyone and everyone else to not disregard it for any other reason imaginable.

It doesn't matter, though. None of you will get what you want. The federal government will not shrink. It will continue to grow until it can no longer be supported, and masses will die.

----------


## michaelr

> Hey, don't look at me, according to The Ax Man's definition that is EXACTLY what you are!
> 
> Join the club, michaelr! How does it feel to take a seat beside a son of Carlo Marx like me?


I'd be happy getting rid of allot of the safety net, if we get rid of all the corporate welfare. Welfare for the public is cheap, paying GE's share of taxes isn't. That's where this fight should be, but the republican leaders tell us different. They benefit from all these corporations and banks not paying taxes, and receiving bailout and QE funds. The establishment repubs are being played.

----------


## Maximatic

> Would YOU ALL STOP IT.   You don't get to harass people on this board about what you think they are!!!


I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Irrelevant, because it obviously HAS been determined to be constitutional.

That ship has sailed ages ago, and whining about it doesn't do anything at all except make you feel virtuous and oh-so-'pure' compared to everyone else. It's moral masturbation.

----------


## michaelr

> Is that position consistent with the constitution? Maybe there are some states with constitutions that allow for government charity, but the Constitution of the US does not. If the wellbeing of the disadvantaged can be used to justify a safety net, it can be used to justify anything else that can be said to benefit the disadvantaged. If a government is not restrained by its constitution it is unrestrained. You can't accept that the constitution can be disregarded for legislation of which you approve, and expect anyone and everyone else to not disregard it for any other reason imaginable.


 No, I don't think it is, but it helps in a very small way to level the field. Is corporate welfare constitutional? Nope. 


> It doesn't matter, though. None of you will get what you want. The federal government will not shrink. It will continue to grow until it can no longer be supported, and masses will die.


Agreed.

----------


## wist43

> The gates to big government have always been open, but voters can always choose whether to walk through it or not.


Wow, lol...

Well, as has been pointed out - you're getting the government you deserve.

----------


## Maximatic

> Irrelevant, because it obviously HAS been determined to be constitutional.
> 
> That ship has sailed ages ago, and whining about it doesn't do anything at all except make you feel virtuous and oh-so-'pure' compared to everyone else. It's moral masturbation.


A court decision doesn't settle the matter of whether the point in dispute is true. If a law being a law, and nothing else, makes it correct, then shut down the forum because there is nothing to discuss.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'd be happy getting rid of allot of the safety net, if we get rid of all the corporate welfare. Welfare for the public is cheap, paying GE's share of taxes isn't. That's where this fight should be, but the republican leaders tell us different. They benefit from all these corporations and banks not paying taxes, and receiving bailout and QE funds. The establishment repubs are being played.


See, i think business taxes should be zero or close to zero.

What happens when you raise taxes to the punitive heights you want them to be to satisfy some Jacobin sense of vengeance and envy?

Business start cutting their most expensive costs: which are labour costs. People get laid off, nobody new is hired, and those left have their workloads increased with no corresponding remuneration. And those who can will move operations offshore, to countries with low tax and labour costs.

So increased business costs means more unemployment, greater strains on the public purse, and an overall deteriorating economic situation.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> A court decision doesn't settle the matter of whether the point in dispute is true. If a law being a law, and nothing else, makes it correct, then shut down the forum because there is nothing to discuss.


You can discuss all you like. It is the opinion of a legal amateur. And almost certainly wrong.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Wow, lol...
> 
> Well, as has been pointed out - you're getting the government you deserve.


My painfully obvious and self-evident observation was wow-worthy?!?! :Thinking: 

You need to get out more....

----------


## michaelr

> See, i think business taxes should be zero or close to zero.
> 
> What happens when you raise taxes to the punitive heights you want them to be to satisfy some Jacobin sense of vengeance and envy?
> 
> Business start cutting their most expensive costs: which are labour costs. People get laid off, nobody new is hired, and those left have their workloads increased with no corresponding remuneration. And those who can will move operations offshore, to countries with low tax and labour costs.
> 
> So increased business costs means more unemployment, greater strains on the public purse, and an overall deteriorating economic situation.


A corporate tax is called for in the constitution. But here is the problem, these hundreds if not thousands of multinationals pay none, or near none, whilst small business and banks aren't given that opportunity. It the people that aren't supposed to pay taxes.

----------


## Dan40

> A corporate tax is called for in the constitution. But here is the problem, these hundreds if not thousands of multinationals pay none, or near none, whilst small business and banks aren't given that opportunity. It the people that aren't supposed to pay taxes.


ALL CORPORATE TAXES are paid by the consumers of that corporations goods or services.  The tax a corporation pays MUST be included in its prices.  Corporate taxes ARE hidden taxes on consumers.

----------


## wist43

> My painfully obvious and self-evident observation was wow-worthy?!?!
> 
> You need to get out more....


What is "wow worthy" is that you accept the progressive interpretations of the Constitution that provide for "big government"...

Those interpretations are completely dishonest and irrational - that anyone accepts them is mind numbing.

I'm both honest and rational, so yeah... that people can be dishonest and irrational?? Yeah, I find that amazing.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> ALL CORPORATE TAXES are paid by the consumers of that corporations goods or services.  The tax a corporation pays MUST be included in its prices.  Corporate taxes ARE hidden taxes on consumers.


I neglected to mention that, BINGO! Spot on!

----------


## michaelr

> ALL CORPORATE TAXES are paid by the consumers of that corporations goods or services. The tax a corporation pays MUST be included in its prices. Corporate taxes ARE hidden taxes on consumers.


I know that.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't think completely eliminating social programs for all the poor is necessary





> I'd be happy getting rid of allot of the safety net, if we get rid of all the corporate welfare.


Ok, these are completely opposite positions on the same day. Which one are you going to stick to?

----------


## michaelr

> Ok, these are completely opposite positions on the same day. Which one are you going to stick to?


If you see those as opposite positions, then that really explains allot, you have the reading skills of a five year old.

One says I don't think getting rid of all is good.

the other says I would be happy getting rid of allot.

Now, excuse me, genius, but your problem is obvious as hell.

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

> If you find being a statist insulting then stop being a statist.


 @Axiomatic - First, I find that the sole intention and purpose of this thread is to insult forum members.  Second, you have a total disconnect between the word "statist" and it's meaning/definition.  Arguing with you over this would be pointless because you are either intransigent or willfully deceptive in your attempt to misconstrue the meaning of the word.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-11-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> "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."* 
> 
> - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleten, January 21, 1792.


Madison is correct.  




> As it seems you guys contend for these to be grants of power - then you are agreeing to limitless government, as James Madison logically pointed out.


You are misreading it, wist.  Whether that is intentional or not I can only guess.  No one here is advocating unlimited Federal government.

OTOH, I am immensely amused that you are quoting a famous Federalist.  I'm a Jefferson Democrat when it comes to matching Jefferson vs. Madison in the powers of government.  While Madison did break from Adams and Hamilton, he helped set the ball rolling in the first place.

Rather than cherry-picking specific quotes, I think it is better to read his entire position on the "general welfare" clause:  http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed41.htm



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
> 
> Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
> 
> 
> "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
> 
> 
> The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!


Madison wasn't against the phrase nor in giving Congress powers to exercise it.  He was simply concerned about giving them a blank check and I agree.  Tightening up to language to prevent abuse is smart.  Detailing powers enumerated is smart.  

None of this goes against what I posted previously.

----------


## Maximatic

> @Axiomatic - First, I find that the sole intention and purpose of this thread is to insult forum members.  Second, you have a total disconnect between the word "statist" and it's meaning/definition.  Arguing with you over this would be pointless because you are either intransigent or willfully deceptive in your attempt to misconstrue the meaning of the word.


It's so cute when people tell me what my intentions are and say "you're completely wrong, and arguing with you is pointless.".

Dead Cat, this is the runner up for the stupidest thing I've read all day. In the OP, I asked for your opinion about where you think you should rank, but, here, you insist that I am either a liar or will refuse to entertain your perspective, AND that I am completely wrong about its definition, and suggest that you don't want to "argue" over it, effectively uninviting any further exchange.

I'm not guilty of any of these stupid accusations you've made, but, in the same post you became guilty of every single one of them, and add to it insistence on presumptions of my intentions AND character. Are you beginning to see the irony?


Regarding the definition of words. The author defines his terms. If you insist on defining the terms as the reader, no communication is possible because, in so doing, you impute meaning into what another is saying regardless of what the author _is actually_ saying. If I am not sure as to what you mean by a term, I will ask you to define it.

The definition that I intend by the word "statist" is the same one that anti-statist have been using ever since we coined the term. So, for the _FOURTH TIME:_

In political science, *statism* (French: _étatisme_) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism.

----------

michaelr (04-11-2014)

----------


## wist43

> None of this goes against what I posted previously.


This is the post I responded to - and yes, everything Madison said in that quote goes against what you said.

I am not misreading it, you are. Madison is arguing that the phrase "general welfare" is nothing more than a preceding qualification that itself has no power. The specific "enumerated powers" are to follow. Which makes perfect sense.




> Likewise with the definition of "safety net".  One man's wasteful "safety net" is another man's necessity for the common welfare.  
> 
> Example;  I believe our nation benefits from an educated, healthy and gainfully employed citizenry.   Educated, healthy and gainfully employed citizens are not only the best producers for our society, but provide the best source of revenue for taxes to reinvest into our infrastructure and national defense.  They also produce the best base for a pool of candidates who choose to serve their nation in the military.  Not because they have to, but because they want to do so.  A highly technical military reduces size of a national military, but also requires highly skilled and educated personnel to make it work.
> 
> Therefore, supporting public schools K-12, some form of health program such vaccinations, preventative care and emergency care and assistance in finding jobs provides a benefit to our national security structure many times more than its cost.  This means those programs aren't "safety nets", but programs supporting "the general welfare" as noted twice in the Constitution.





> Madison is correct.
> 
> You are misreading it, wist.  Whether that is intentional or not I can only guess.  No one here is advocating unlimited Federal government.
> 
> OTOH, I am immensely amused that you are quoting a famous Federalist.  I'm a Jefferson Democrat when it comes to matching Jefferson vs. Madison in the powers of government.  While Madison did break from Adams and Hamilton, he helped set the ball rolling in the first place.
> 
> Rather than cherry-picking specific quotes, I think it is better to read his entire position on the "general welfare" clause:  http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed41.htm
> 
> 
> Madison wasn't against the phrase nor in giving Congress powers to exercise it.  He was simply concerned about giving them a blank check and I agree.


I will post the entire quote you provided from Madison. As I said, he makes no contention in the least that the phrase could be used as empowerment - I think anyone who reads it carefully can only agree.

As it would seem you disagree, I would say highlight the verbage in which you find positive assignment, and explain how you get that?? I have no problem accepting the challege of parsing the quote, b/c I am quite familiar with the quote.

Helpfully, here is the entire quote you posted.




> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
> 
> Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
> 
> "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
> 
> The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!





> Tightening up to language to prevent abuse is smart. Detailing powers enumerated is smart.


You'll get no disagreement from me there  :Smile:

----------


## wist43

> a democracy is when the majority of people pretty much decide things based on if the majority thinks its best for the country, and a republic is when the constitution/laws/states decide it and cant be changed on a whim by the majority of the country without following the law or protecting the minority in some way.


Figured I better "mention" you, b/c I only happened to see your reponse here by chance... lot of traffic in this thread.

So, here ya go @Tay

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now was that so hard?? lol...  :Wink: 

So moving along the thread of logic - surely they taught you about "the living Constitution", and that we are a "democracy", did they not??

----------


## DonGlock26

> @Axiomatic - First, I find that the sole intention and purpose of this thread is to insult forum members.  Second, you have a total disconnect between the word "statist" and it's meaning/definition.  Arguing with you over this would be pointless because you are either intransigent or willfully deceptive in your attempt to misconstrue the meaning of the word.


Well, it sure isn't about defending the volunteerist philosophy.  Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

----------


## wist43

> @Axiomatic - First, I find that the sole intention and purpose of this thread is to insult forum members.  Second, you have a total disconnect between the word "statist" and it's meaning/definition.  Arguing with you over this would be pointless because you are either intransigent or willfully deceptive in your attempt to misconstrue the meaning of the word.


I think this thread has been very revealing... tons of posts, lot of feathers flying.

The insults hurled my way were a hoot, lol...

Regardless, I certainly think it served to expose some people who were otherwise hiding behind polite labels, or polite personas.

Nothing "polite" about government force - at some point, if a government is so empowered that it can't be constrained or reined it, then I think it is only acknowledging the obvious, that it is in effect an authoritarian government.

I don't see how it can be denied that the United States has an authoritarian government. The fact that the people have voted to install and put up with authoritarian government means nothing beyond the fact that any citizenry dumb enough to vote themselves into such a mess, deserves to suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

A lot of people who say they are opposed to unconstrained government, have been exposed in this thread as supporting the progressive loopholes that have led to that unconstrained government.

At least liberals/progressives/socialists, i.e. avowed statists have no problem owning the label. They're fools to be sure, but at least they don't try to hide behind a thin veil of supposed opposition to statism.

----------

NuYawka (04-11-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> If you see those as opposite positions, *then that really explains allot, you have the reading skills of a five year old.*
> 
> One says I don't think getting rid of all is good.
> 
> the other says I would be happy getting rid of allot.
> 
> Now, excuse me, genius, but your problem is obvious as hell.


This genius knows that you aren't using "allot" correctly. So, I have that going for me.

I also know that progressives love their welfare state.

----------

Bill the Dead Cat (04-12-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> It's so cute when people tell me what my intentions are and say "you're completely wrong, and arguing with you is pointless.".
> 
> Dead Cat, this is the runner up for the stupidest thing I've read all day. In the OP, I asked for your opinion about where you think you should rank, but, here, you insist that I am either a liar or will refuse to entertain your perspective, AND that I am completely wrong about its definition, and suggest that you don't want to "argue" over it, effectively uninviting any further exchange.
> 
> I'm not guilty of any of these stupid accusations you've made, but, in the same post you became guilty of every single one of them, and add to it insistence on presumptions of my intentions AND character. Are you beginning to see the irony?
> 
> 
> Regarding the definition of words. The author defines his terms. If you insist on defining the terms as the reader, no communication is possible because, in so doing, you impute meaning into what another is saying regardless of what the author _is actually_ saying. If I am not sure as to what you mean by a term, I will ask you to define it.
> 
> ...


So a statist is one that favors the state having all power.  "The State" meaning the federal govt?

So one that wants the power of the federal govt restricted and the power given to the STATES, is a,,,,,,,,,,,What?  Also a statist?  A non-statist even tho he want the STATE to have the power?

What I can tell you radical libertarian conservatives is that if you continue to fight with and vilify REAL conservatives, you will once again see a liberal in the White House.

Politics is the art of getting the best deal for your side.  It is not jumping off a cliff for a principle.  There are no principles in politics, there are only winners and losers.

----------


## michaelr

> This genius knows that you aren't using "allot" correctly. So, I have that going for me.
> 
> I also know that progressives love their welfare state.


Hey sorry bastard, what's your problem?


*Um hello, be civil !*
 @michaelr

----------


## DonGlock26

> Hey sorry bastard, what's your problem?


Problem? This thread is exceeding my expectations.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

I am roughly 1/3 'statist'.

That's a good place to be at.

How statist are you?

http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_a_statist_1

[Warning, this quiz is a little tough]

----------


## Taylor

> Figured I better "mention" you, b/c I only happened to see your reponse here by chance... lot of traffic in this thread.
> 
> So, here ya go @Tay
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Now was that so hard?? lol... 
> 
> So moving along the thread of logic - surely they taught you about "the living Constitution", and that we are a "democracy", did they not??


I don't know, I don't really remember. A lot of people say "democracy" when they talk about America though.

----------


## wist43

> I am roughly 1/3 'statist'.
> 
> That's a good place to be at.
> 
> How statist are you?
> 
> http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_a_statist_1
> 
> [Warning, this quiz is a little tough]


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Well, lol... it said I am a 0% statist... that I possibly belong in Gitmo!!!  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Since I've been to Gitmo, I'll pass  :Smile:

----------


## Dos Equis

> I don't know, I don't really remember. A lot of people say "democracy" when they talk about America though.


And on this note I think this is a good place to end this thread.

Good work Tay.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Well, lol... it said I am a 0% statist... that I possibly belong in Gitmo!!! 
> 
> Since I've been to Gitmo, I'll pass


That's nothing.  After I took the quiz it directed me where I should turn myself in to the NSA.

What, are they too lazy to come arrest me themselves?

----------


## wist43

> a democracy is when the majority of people pretty much decide things based on if the majority thinks its best for the country, and a republic is when the constitution/laws/states decide it and cant be changed on a whim by the majority of the country without following the law or protecting the minority in some way.





> Sorry, close, but not correct.  Democracy is direct vote like a show of hands.  Republic is a representative vote where we vote for delegates and then those delegates decide.  A straight democracy works on the townhall level but at the State level, where it becomes more complicated.  Texas has about 25 million citizens.
> 
> Example; one side of the state wants to build a dam.  Doing so would raise the taxes of everyone.  Since you and I live on the other side of the state, all we see is taxes and no benefit.  A delegate who attends state meetings on the issue would learn that such a project would help everyone through increased electrical power resources, water conservation during drought which means lower food costs and a host of other benefits.  
> 
> A Constitutional Republic, which is what we have, is a Republic where all citizens are protected by set law such as our Bill of Rights.  Therefore, although I may be against gay marriage, the fact the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause states that all laws must be equally applied.  Ergo, regardless of my religious or other beliefs, I cannot seek to pass laws which benefit one group and not another for arbitrary reasons.
> 
> We can have a Constitutional Democracy or, as some countries have, a Constitutional Monarchy.


 @Max Rockatansky @Tay @Ghost

Max, your explaination of a republic is not correct, or at least it is not complete - Tay's is closer to the truth. Perhaps if you had said something like, _"... the delegates decide within the confines of the enumerated powers"??_

I think we've been thru this b/4. The word republic comes from the Latin _res publica,_ the public good, the public thing, the law.

By America's understanding of the term, a republic, i.e. the rule of law, our Constitution, applies to the government, not the people. It is the government that is subject to the law, not the people - and that is obvious in our Constitution, which is a negative document.

The negative nature of the Constitution with respect to the government is born out in many ways, but one of the easiest ways to view it is by looking at the Bill of Rights. The Bill or Rights does not grant citizen rights, it prohibits the government - easily seen in the verbage, i.e. "Congress shall pass no law..."

Furthermore, in the body of the Constitution itself the FedGov is specifically empowered with certain "enumerated powers" - and Congress is only authorized to use the power granted for those purposes alone. The language of the Constitution does not grant rights to the citizens, it restricts the government.

Even if a majority of people want the government to pass a given law, the Congress is supposed to be prohibited from doing so if the proposed law does not fall within an enumerated power. If the people want the FedGov to do something that is not within an enumerated power, they have the option of amending the Constitution - but the amendment process is not a democratic one - it requires more than one super majority hurdle to be cleared. Of course this was done to further protect the people from themselves and the government itself insomuch as to prevent frivolous things or desired changes born out of the passion of moment.

The negative foundation that our Constitution gives us is designed to protect the citizens _from the government_. This is why open-ended interpretations are so dangerous, and as Madison said, contend for a metamorphosis of the Constitution. The open-ended interpretations effectively transmute the negative nature of our Constitution into a positive one.

This is also why Ghost's comment about there not being a 2nd amendment for drugs is so wrong, in that it presupposes a positive nature upon the Government absent some overt restriction like the 2nd amendment. It presumes to grant rights, as opposed to the truth, which is that our rights exist outside of the governments authority.

----------

fyrenza (04-12-2014)

----------


## wist43

> And on this note I think this is a good place to end this thread.
> 
> Good work Tay.


Sorry DE, still have a few irons in the fire, lol...  :Smile:

----------


## Bill the Dead Cat

> It's so cute when people tell me what my intentions are and say "you're completely wrong, and arguing with you is pointless.".
> 
> Dead Cat, this is the runner up for the stupidest thing I've read all day.


It's really hard for me to tell whether you are intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding the meaning of the word "statism." I'd explain it to you but why bother?  Hint, look farther down the Wiki page you got the definition from.  There is no point in ranking anyone on your list or myself since it only mischaracterizes them, and I believe, is meant as a put-down.  

This is how I normally end conversations with liberals:

Have a nice day.

>>BLOCKED<<

----------


## Maximatic

> So a statist is one that favors the state having all power. "The State" meaning the federal govt?
> 
> So one that wants the power of the federal govt restricted and the power given to the STATES, is a,,,,,,,,,,,What? Also a statist? A non-statist even tho he want the STATE to have the power?
> 
> What I can tell you radical libertarian conservatives is that if you continue to fight with and vilify REAL conservatives, you will once again see a liberal in the White House.
> 
> Politics is the art of getting the best deal for your side. It is not jumping off a cliff for a principle. There are no principles in politics, there are only winners and losers.


It's a generic definition of state as an institution that maintains a monopoly on law and the legal use of force in a given geographic area where, a given geographic area is assumed to be greater than a lot presumed to be owned by a single person. Any government could fit the definition.

The reason libertarians who still vote don't join you in backing the oppositions candidate is that to do so would be to help perpetuate the pattern that leads to exponential growth of the federal government.

When a republican candidate is elected, he serves, just by virtue of being of the opposition party, to placate conservatives. When it happens, they get the feeling that things are moving in the direction they want to go. The political climate never actually moves in that direction. Instead, conservatives become accustomed to what was enacted under administration of the progressive party, and accept them. In the following cycle, the progressive party wants more (They always will because there must always be something more to offer to the "people"), and the new things the progressive party wants become the new relevant issues, and repeal of what the opposition party opposed during the previous cycle moves out of the set of that which is politically expedient.

A vote for either party only helps to reinforce the cycle. A vote for the opposition party is effectively the same as a vote for the progressive party two or three terms prior.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> It's a generic definition of state as an institution that maintains a monopoly on law and the legal use of force in a given geographic area where, a given geographic area is assumed to be greater than a lot presumed to be owned by a single person. Any government could fit the definition.


The Founding Fathers were all 'statists' then, because THAT'S what they all, without exception, believed.

In fact, every rational political philosopher in HISTORY was statist, by your definition.

To to be against that is ipso facto to confess yourself to be a mentally deranged, swivel-eyed lunatic, as only such an afflicted person could possibly be AGAINST such a state of affairs.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-12-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The Founding Fathers were all 'statists' then, because THAT'S what they all, without exception, believed.


That's right. They were.  That seems like a non sequitur as no one has disputed that. Some of them, like you, were all for big government and heavy handed enforcement of their beliefs.




> In fact, every rational political philosopher in HISTORY was statist, by your definition.


Given your inability to rationally define where rights come from, I doubt you have any clear idea of what a "rational" philosopher is. Probably anyone that agrees with you.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> The Founding Fathers were all 'statists' then, because THAT'S what they all, without exception, believed.
> 
> In fact, every rational political philosopher in HISTORY was statist, by your definition.
> 
> To to be against that is ipso facto to confess yourself to be a mentally deranged, swivel-eyed lunatic, as only such an afflicted person could possibly be AGAINST such a state of affairs.

----------


## Maximatic

> The Founding Fathers were all 'statists' then, because THAT'S what they all, without exception, believed.
> 
> In fact, every rational political philosopher in HISTORY was statist, by your definition.
> 
> To to be against that is ipso facto to confess yourself to be a mentally deranged, swivel-eyed lunatic, as only such an afflicted person could possibly be AGAINST such a state of affairs.


You're not using your progressive propaganda playbook to its full potential. You should take a lesson from Dick Dawkins and say that I am also a child abuser because I tech my children that they are rational beings with natural rights who are sovereign over their own lives, all by virtue of their being human, that no government can acquire rights that no human has to give to it, that any person or group that acts as if it does is a scourge on humanity, and that rational people are capable of maintaining systems of governance that do not, by necessity of their nature, violate natural human rights.

----------


## Dan40

It is not possible to debate intelligently with libertarian anarchists that wrongly believe they have all the answers, when they have NO answers.  Offer NO solutions.  Just want to pat themselves uselessly on the back and think they're better than anyone else.

When, in fact, they are a burden and a hindrance to accomplishing any solutions.

They support anarchy, and that has never worked in the history of mankind and never will.  But they lie and claim it has and can.

And they support solid cement libertarianism that has yet to accomplish a single thing after 42 years of mindless baying at everyone but themselves.  The ACTUAL problem.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-12-2014)

----------


## QuaseMarco

I want my ranking changed based on my test results: 




> *You are 0% Statist* 
>  0%
> 
>  You are an anti-statist, possibly an extremist.  You might belong in Guantanamo Bay.  You might consider yourself an individualist, libertarian, anarchist, or minarchist.
> http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_a_statist_1

----------


## Dan40

> I want my ranking changed based on my test results:


The "ranker" has no qualifications to 'rank.'  He is just rank! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## QuaseMarco

> The "ranker" has no qualifications to 'rank.'  He is just rank!


Go figure.   :Thinking:

----------


## wist43

> I want my ranking changed based on my test results:


Yeah, I saw you pretty high up there on the list... knew that wasn't right  :Smile: 

I think there were a couple of others who took Ghost's quiz that came out at 0% - as I said, I came out at 0% too.

You have to know your stuff to come out at zero though - there was tricky verbage there that could snare someone who either wasn't reading closely enough, or was maybe lacking in full understanding.

----------


## Dan40

> Yeah, I saw you pretty high up there on the list... knew that wasn't right 
> 
> I think there were a couple of others who took Ghost's quiz that came out at 0% - as I said, I came out at 0% too.
> 
> You have to know your stuff to come out at zero though - there was tricky verbage there that could snare someone who either wasn't reading closely enough, or was maybe lacking in full understanding.


In that case, your zero was a grade, not a percentage.
 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Maximatic

> It is not possible to debate intelligently with libertarian anarchists that wrongly believe they have all the answers, when they have NO answers.  Offer NO solutions.  Just want to pat themselves uselessly on the back and think they're better than anyone else.
> 
> When, in fact, they are a burden and a hindrance to accomplishing any solutions.
> 
> They support anarchy, and that has never worked in the history of mankind and never will.  But they lie and claim it has and can.
> 
> And they support solid cement libertarianism that has yet to accomplish a single thing after 42 years of mindless baying at everyone but themselves.  The ACTUAL problem.


The only people I have trouble debating intelligently are those who do not or cannot submit to reason. It doesn't matter one iota WHAT the person believes, if that person understands the laws of logic and the rules of inference and commits to being restrained by them, we can have an intelligent and rational debate.

----------


## Maximatic

> I want my ranking changed based on my test results:


What is your honest answer to question 9?

----------


## Maximatic

http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_a_statist_1 

Wow. That is a very good test.

9. What is the proper size and scope of government in relation to markets?


  Markets deliver ordinary consumer and producer goods in a relatively  efficient fashion. However, for various economic and political reasons,  private transactions for fundamental services and institutions, like  law, money, and defense, fail badly. There is no sense in even  discussing markets without the prior need of a state. Government must  exist to enforce the 'rules of the game' for society to emerge from  chaos. Government must establish and enforce basic rules for society,  but avoid discretionary or destabilizing intervention into markets.

  Markets fail to provide fundamental institutions and suffer from  serious imperfections concerning ordinary goods and services. For  example, instability in markets causes recurring crises and leads to  growing inequality. We should retain markets for most goods and  services, but government must have discretionary authority to intervene  in every market based on observed failures. In this way, the state and  market can work together in a public-private partnership model.


  Markets are an arena for powerful business interests to exploit workers  and consumers. Capitalism impoverishes and alienates the masses while  enriching a few elites. It also devastates the environment and  entrenches violence. A truly humane society would abolish private  property, except for personal possessions (e.g. clothing and shoes).  Communal arrangements in the production and distribution of goods  deliver a more just and fulfilled society for all.


 Order in society can emerge through voluntary transactions between  individuals. *People can engage in private transactions for anything they  value,* *including laws and security*. Since all choices concern  alternative future states of the world, each individual alone  understands which goods best suit him or her, including protection and  dispute resolution. Ideally, government would be limited to protecting  rights, but government as we know it serves elites and violates rights  to self-ownership, and efforts to limit governmental powers tend to  fail. *Private institutions for security and arbitration are more  efficient and moral than public equivalents.
*




Only an absolute voluntarist, aka anarcho-capitalist, can score a zero on that test with all honest answers. If you answered honestly with full understanding of the questions and possible answers, and scored zero, you are a voluntarist.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> What is your honest answer to question 9?


Order in society can emerge through voluntary transactions between individuals. People can engage in private transactions for anything they value, including laws and security. Since all choices concern alternative future states of the world, each individual alone understands which goods best suit him or her, including protection and dispute resolution. Ideally, government would be limited to protecting rights, but government as we know it serves elites and violates rights to self-ownership, and efforts to limit governmental powers tend to fail. Private institutions for security and arbitration are more efficient and moral than public equivalents.

Note: I took the time to read all the answers and chose the best option for each. I scored zero. Go figure!

----------


## Maximatic

> Order in society can emerge through voluntary transactions between individuals. People can engage in private transactions for anything they value, including laws and security. Since all choices concern alternative future states of the world, each individual alone understands which goods best suit him or her, including protection and dispute resolution. Ideally, government would be limited to protecting rights, but government as we know it serves elites and violates rights to self-ownership, and efforts to limit governmental powers tend to fail. Private institutions for security and arbitration are more efficient and moral than public equivalents.
> 
> Note: I took the time to read all the answers and chose the best option for each. I scored zero. Go figure!


Okay, I'm happy to hear that. You may not go by the label, but you're a Voluntarist.

----------


## Maximatic

This is nice. I'm finding that there are a lot more anti-statist here than I thought.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> This is nice. I'm finding that there are a lot more anti-statist here than I thought.


Well I think that's great!

----------



----------


## Longshot

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


 @Network is my new hero. But you forget @BleedingHeadKen, who I think, belongs below @Network (sorry @Network)

----------



----------


## Longshot

> Government lovers on top. Government haters on bottom.


I think it would be more accurate to say: Aggression lovers at the top; aggression haters at the bottom.

----------


## Longshot

> Oh shoot. You're not on the list. Where do you want to be?


On top?

----------

Max Rockatansky (04-14-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> On top?


LOL

Let's hope that was a _double entendre_ and not just a political statement.  :Big Grin:

----------

Longshot (04-15-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> @Network is my new hero. But you forget @BleedingHeadKen, who I think, belongs below @Network (sorry @Network)


Yeah, I think BHK is the leading anti-aggressionist on the board. I definitely look up to him. I didn't forget him, though. I just copied the entire list of members who had logged on in the last 24 hrs and rearranged it. He didn't happen to be on it. I didn't try to get a perfectly accurate ranking, I really just wanted to get people talking about it and _telling me_ where they should rank. Also, some of the rankings were just to poke fun.

edit: You too, actually, even though you don't say much. Believe it or not, I actually do respect my elders when they give me a reason to think they really are wiser than I am.

----------


## Dan40

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


I'll stick with the "other" list.

Sensible, sagacious, aware, analytical, fair, and forgiving.



 @Dan40

----------


## Ravi

> This is the spectrum we're using.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best I could do with what I know about you guys. If you're not on the list it means, either, that you have no political opinions, or I don't know any of your political opinions, or you haven't logged on in over 24 hrs. Some people adjacent to others could be on the same line.
> 
> From most statist, at the top, to least statist, at the bottom.
> 
> 
> ...


who the hell are you? I don't even post here.

----------


## Maximatic

lofnl

Get over yourself.

----------


## Ravi

> lofnl
> 
> Get over yourself.


^creepers gonna creep.

----------

