Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 11:01:13 PM
juvenile? You are the one that can't back up whatever the hell you have been whining about.
If I am so wrong and the raving Socialist you claim I am you can easily prove it by posting the relevant parts of the constitution that refute me and support your argument.

So it wasn't just me  ?  Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip  ?

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me  ?  Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip  ?

It's refreshing to see that your only contribution is personal address, and focus on "Trip".

In this day and age, with all we're facing, it's important to be able to rely on something.

Well, we've winnowed you down to two sentences.  It was worth the yeoman effort and heartache.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
Quote

My  asking a QUESTION about what you exactly mean, prompting for your response, is not "putting words in your mouth".   If had attempted to rephrase your argument as a statement, or even a question, and did so inaccurately, that would be "putting words in your mouth."

Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!

There is only ONE consequence of a government bound by the limits of the Constitut9ion, and that is FREEDOM.    Some don't want freedom, theirs or others, and may create a stink, but they're not entitled to that stink, nor the involuntary servitude of others in their behalf.

QuoteIt's irrelevant that the violation of the Constitution occurred progressively over time. That progressive corruption had to occur in that fashion due to a general respect for the Constitution's terms.

Your slow restoration of the Constitution over time, involves ZERO respect for the Constitution's terms, and indicates that  it's okay that we be outside the terms of that Constitution, and that the "Law of the Land" isn't really the law of the land at all.

And, as stated, you reduce the objective Rule of Law, to the subjective Rule of Man.

And you whine about my "putting words in your mouth", but here you're implying what i "mean" by restoring the Constitution, and implying that anything i said denies women the right to vote?

The equal access to the voting franchise is something recognized by the Constitution, not just law.   In fact the Constitution nowhere provided that 1) voting was a positive right (and still doesn't), and 2) never indicated who might receive or not receive that franchise, inclusive of women and blacks.

So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.

QuoteIf you're going to argue the Constitution", how about you not make it up, and then confuse it with statutory law.
Evidently you believe we replace it with some sort of sliding scale outside of that Constitution, and that it be subjectively applied, regularly changing, and open to despotic abuse and interpretation.  That is in fact what YOU are arguing. 

The intent of the Constitution is that it be a "form" of government only, not the details of that government. But we cannot even adhere to only that form. 

And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.

QuoteThe overall  problem we now face is that when the rule of law is no longer reliable, which is the net effect of what you advocate, then men seek justice by their own hand - revolution. 

Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.

QuoteYour perspective actually brings about the very revolution (civil war) you allegedly reject.

Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't?

QuoteTARD, go gather your wits. Have a cup of coffee or something. Seriously. 

NOWHERE did I indicate the denial of the (non-existent "right") to vote for blacks or women. That is only YOU creating these strawman arguments, nowhere indicated by me, and sounding like nothing but an enormous LIB in the process!

IGNORING  the fact that no positive right to vote has ever been recognized by the Constitution, not even the amended current constitution,  voting really is not the backbone of our society.  We're a Republic, not a damn Democracy, but you seem to have sat at the trough and heavily imbibed in the swill from the socialist media about "the right to vote", and "will of the people", and all that nonsense, none of which alters the legitimate authority of government.

Nothing about adherence to the Constitution involves the denial of rights.

Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?

QuoteHaving 'your cake and eating it to" is claiming the Constitution is still valid, but rejecting adherence to that Constitution.

I'm not arguing return to the 1776, or even the return to the un-amended Constitution of 1787.   What I *am* arguing is for return to the Constitution and its uncorrupted principles.

All your whining , and now you change the rules?

I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me  ?  Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip  ?

A "capitalist" would be happy with a million people operating independently, each doing their own thing based on their abilities and goals.  A "socialist" would want to "unite" these individuals and small groups with himself as their leader to accomplish the leader's personal goal.  Now follow ME dammit!

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!

There is only ONE consequence of a government bound by the limits of the Constitut9ion, and that is FREEDOM.    Some don't want freedom, theirs or others, and may create a stink, but they're not entitled to that stink, nor the involuntary servitude of others in their behalf.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.
And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.
Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't?
Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?


All your whining , and now you change the rules?

I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.

I'm probably guilty of having very unconstitutional thoughts.

One of my big ones, is that I think that only people that pay taxes should be able to vote, with possible removal of voting rights for public sector unionized workers...the other unmentioned dependents on big government.

It may be unconstitutional, but after seeing Obama's massive expansion of the welfare state, at the rate we're going, the takers will be a rock solid majority within a decade, with the payers having no say in anything.

What would we have with little to no federal controls, and little to no state controls  ?

And local govts. subject to the same disdain / suspicion  ?

In the end, we'd have nothing but millions of little communes, here there and everywhere. 

This sounds more like the basic theoretical endpoint of marxism, than anything else.

A capitalist, constitutional, republic of independent states......needs a smattering of basic governing mechanisms at each level.

Just as our constitution provides.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!

The difference between my question, and your own, and this example, is that my own asks you to specify something that is directly related to what you've indicated, whereas yours involves fabrication of things I never indicated, such as disallowing women or blacks to vote.   Their right to vote is now established in the Constitution, and restoring the Constitution will not deny that vote.  We do however have to recognizing that voting does not alter our form of government, nor enable agendas against various people, or interests.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:21:59 PMAnd you whine about my "putting words in your mouth", but here you're implying what i "mean" by restoring the Constitution, and implying that anything i said denies women the right to vote?

The equal access to the voting franchise is something recognized by the Constitution, not just law.   In fact the Constitution nowhere provided that 1) voting was a positive right (and still doesn't), and 2) never indicated who might receive or not receive that franchise, inclusive of women and blacks.

So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.

Evidently your "knock it off" only applies to me, when what you're doing is far worse.

The fact that "voting" is not described in the Constitution as any sort of positive right -- for everyone, has nothing whatsoever to do with women losing the right to vote. 

No, you don't want to be clear on this. You want to make it unclear by yet again asserting the "women lose the right to vote" which is not even possibly extrapolated from anything I've indicated.

This is the sort of dishonest bullcrap we get from the rabid left, like Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, with claims that the GOP wants to have old people eating cat food, blacks back in chains, and women pregnant and in the kitchen, .... so "knock it off".

"Does your Constitution bite"?  No, your view of the Constitution doesn't even allow it a backbone.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.

There's no logical connection whatsoever between the assertion that the government went wrong once (currently) and any positive benefit from "deconstructing government slowly".

Furthermore, we got to where we are by a lack of vigilance on the part of the people.    It is irrational assert that partial vigilance, and restoring the constitution only in gradual parts,  will hold the attention of the people to any long-term end.   Do you plan to provide a schedule for this gradual transition, and should people consult some sort of calendar, "okay, what part of legitimate government have we restored today?"   

Yeah, gradual restoration  is going to profoundly establish the idea of a clear boundary between illegitimate and legitimate government that our founders outline in the Constitution (Yes, that's sarcasm.)  Your argument is not just wrong, it's insipid.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.

Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't?

The problem is that the lions are already out, already biting you, and you're already suffering from massive bleeding.   The idea that if we slowwwwwwwwwwwly  restore the lions to the cage that things might be restored to normal without any problems just is not rational.

Civil War may already be inevitable, but making it "acceptable" by agreement that government is operating outside the box, teaches people that they can no longer rely on the Constitution, nor the rule of law, and violence is really the only course of action to obtain justice. 

At least with revolution there might be an overall goal involving order and the rule of law; we did it once, unlike many other nations.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?

You're really not all that familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or this nation's history.

The Bill of Rights was not necessary for those rights to be "afforded".   IN fact those rights do not come from that Bill of Rights itself at all!  Rights are not grants, nor provisions from the Bill of Rights (and they cannot be denied by altering that Bill of Rights with further amendments)

I suggest you read and endeavor to actually understand Hamilton's Federalist #84  in which he  argues that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and even "dangerous", as it provides "a colorable pretext to claim more <federal authorities> than were granted."  Hamilton argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary, because the Federal government was already limited to specifically enumerated powers tp specifically protect those rigths, and nowhere in those enumerated powers is the authority to deny the freedom of the press, nor to deny the right to bear arms, nor to limit the freedom of religion, and many other things protected by rights. 

Unfortunately Hamilton was spot-on, with this being exactly what has happened with "Rights".  Government has used the Bill of Rights, intended to preclude government action and effect, as an excuse ("colorable pretext")  to police rights and provide rights by federal authority, and this is how government began legislating over the territory that is the states, when that is authority over the States nowhere allowed in any instance by the Constitution. 

As a result of this corruption,  the right to association, has become the government's  authority to mandate busing, and compel individuals to associate with others.   The freedom of religion, has allowed government to fabricate a right to be free of religion.  And theright to security and safety has been used an excuse to deny people the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to spy on all of our personal information with the NSA. 

And the President, a singular entity of the Government, now has given himself the authority to deny all rights,  under the claim of national security - that being the preservation of government, not the people's security, and institute Martial Law!  The result is it make our rights be in service to the government, rather than making the government in service of our rights, as intended.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?

No, there's no such physical law of political mechanics that says that gradual corruption  requires gradual remedy of that corruption, and in fact such a gradual remedy only serves to validate that corruption.

I was arguing that universal suffrage, and the sanctity of the vote, was not any sort of sacred plank of this country's principles.   The elevation of the populist vote is invariably tied to socialism, and Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is in fact the repeated cry we hear from the Marxist left, even willing to have non-citizens vote, and open borders.   The founders denial of the right to vote to non-responsible persons of society, was not from some prejudicial disregard for rights, but rather intended to protect those rights and freedoms.

Actually I indicated it was important for the voters to have a vested interest in the stability of society, i.e own property or at least earn an income, and to no surprise that is what the founders recognized too.

• "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
  ~ Ben Franklin
  
  "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
  ~ Alexander Tytler

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.

You really have no room to make comment about 'debating with a lib" until you actually first understand the Constitution, and stop actually using the Lib's own arguments which have corrupted this Republic, such as the importance of voting, and rights coming from the Bill of Rights.

You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.

Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 08:06:22 AM
The difference between my question, and your own, and this example, is that my own asks you to specify something that is directly related to what you've indicated, whereas yours involves fabrication of things I never indicated, such as disallowing women or blacks to vote.   Their right to vote is now established in the Constitution, and restoring the Constitution will not deny that vote.  We do however have to recognizing that voting does not alter our form of government, nor enable agendas against various people, or interests.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.

Evidently your "knock it off" only applies to me, when what you're doing is far worse.

The fact that "voting" is not described in the Constitution as any sort of positive right -- for everyone, has nothing whatsoever to do with women losing the right to vote. 

No, you don't want to be clear on this. You want to make it unclear by yet again asserting the "women lose the right to vote" which is not even possibly extrapolated from anything I've indicated.

This is the sort of dishonest bullcrap we get from the rabid left, like Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, with claims that the GOP wants to have old people eating cat food, blacks back in chains, and women pregnant and in the kitchen, .... so "knock it off".

"Does your Constitution bite"?  No, your view of the Constitution doesn't even allow it a backbone.

There's no logical connection whatsoever between the assertion that the government went wrong once (currently) and any positive benefit from "deconstructing government slowly".

Furthermore, we got to where we are by a lack of vigilance on the part of the people.    It is irrational assert that partial vigilance, and restoring the constitution only in gradual parts,  will hold the attention of the people to any long-term end.   Do you plan to provide a schedule for this gradual transition, and should people consult some sort of calendar, "okay, what part of legitimate government have we restored today?"   

Yeah, gradual restoration  is going to profoundly establish the idea of a clear boundary between illegitimate and legitimate government that our founders outline in the Constitution (Yes, that's sarcasm.)  Your argument is not just wrong, it's insipid.
The problem is that the lions are already out, already biting you, and you're already suffering from massive bleeding.   The idea that if we slowwwwwwwwwwwly  restore the lions to the cage that things might be restored to normal without any problems just is not rational.

Civil War may already be inevitable, but making it "acceptable" by agreement that government is operating outside the box, teaches people that they can no longer rely on the Constitution, nor the rule of law, and violence is really the only course of action to obtain justice. 

At least with revolution there might be an overall goal involving order and the rule of law; we did it once, unlike many other nations.

You're really not all that familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or this nation's history.

The Bill of Rights was not necessary for those rights to be "afforded".   IN fact those rights do not come from that Bill of Rights itself at all!  Rights are not grants, nor provisions from the Bill of Rights (and they cannot be denied by altering that Bill of Rights with further amendments)

I suggest you read and endeavor to actually understand Hamilton's Federalist #84  in which he  argues that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and even "dangerous", as it provides "a colorable pretext to claim more <federal authorities> than were granted."  Hamilton argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary, because the Federal government was already limited to specifically enumerated powers tp specifically protect those rigths, and nowhere in those enumerated powers is the authority to deny the freedom of the press, nor to deny the right to bear arms, nor to limit the freedom of religion, and many other things protected by rights. 

Unfortunately Hamilton was spot-on, with this being exactly what has happened with "Rights".  Government has used the Bill of Rights, intended to preclude government action and effect, as an excuse ("colorable pretext")  to police rights and provide rights by federal authority, and this is how government began legislating over the territory that is the states, when that is authority over the States nowhere allowed in any instance by the Constitution. 

As a result of this corruption,  the right to association, has become the government's  authority to mandate busing, and compel individuals to associate with others.   The freedom of religion, has allowed government to fabricate a right to be free of religion.  And theright to security and safety has been used an excuse to deny people the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to spy on all of our personal information with the NSA. 

And the President, a singular entity of the Government, now has given himself the authority to deny all rights,  under the claim of national security - that being the preservation of government, not the people's security, and institute Martial Law!  The result is it make our rights be in service to the government, rather than making the government in service of our rights, as intended.


No, there's no such physical law of political mechanics that says that gradual corruption  requires gradual remedy of that corruption, and in fact such a gradual remedy only serves to validate that corruption.

I was arguing that universal suffrage, and the sanctity of the vote, was not any sort of sacred plank of this country's principles.   The elevation of the populist vote is invariably tied to socialism, and Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is in fact the repeated cry we hear from the Marxist left, even willing to have non-citizens vote, and open borders.   The founders denial of the right to vote to non-responsible persons of society, was not from some prejudicial disregard for rights, but rather intended to protect those rights and freedoms.

Actually I indicated it was important for the voters to have a vested interest in the stability of society, i.e own property or at least earn an income, and to no surprise that is what the founders recognized too.

• "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
  ~ Ben Franklin
  
  "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
  ~ Alexander Tytler

You really have no room to make comment about 'debating with a lib" until you actually first understand the Constitution, and stop actually using the Lib's own arguments which have corrupted this Republic, such as the importance of voting, and rights coming from the Bill of Rights.

You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.

I still don't see what choice we have, but to do everything we can to vote in constitutional conservatives, which, by it's very nature, will be a slow process, since we appear to have little interest in the constitution, from either party, nor the supreme court, nor the voting public.

I'm sure Obama would love to see some type of uprising, in fact, he seems to taunt people into trying it. At worst, it would be suicide, and at best, conservatives would be the first guests at the razor wire fenced FEMA camps....with much of the country cheering.

Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 08:06:22 AM


You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.

Yes I have, your assertion that we need to remove all Govt of the last 200 years would be a complete and utter catastrophe.
You have yet to prove your case that it wouldn't.

It's your lack of business sense that destroys your case, you just can't cut business of at the knees and expect the country to prosper, let alone survive.
Unfortunately people have come dependent on Govt, like VA benefits, even though they too are unconstitutional.

Show how your plan will not result in a complete collapse of the country, and again, keep it short, I didn't even read the crap you just posted, more long winded BS.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
Yes I have, your assertion that we need to remove all Govt of the last 200 years would be a complete and utter catastrophe.
You have yet to prove your case that it wouldn't.

What's wrong with you? Is this some problematic understanding on your part, or are you deliberately stating things I've nowhere said, going from denying women and blacks the vote, to this?

No, I never said "we need to remove all government".   THere's a major difference between "all government" and "illegitimate government", and it doesn't involve "of the last 200 years" which is nothing but a heavy-handed addition that you added for effect,  having no relevance either. 

This claim of "removing all government" is exactly what Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Polisi and all the leftists say when we indicate the need to remove illegitimate government!  Then they make claims like "polluted water and air", and returning blacks to slavery, and going back to "live by lamplight".... all nothing but unfounded hysteria!

You're spouting nonsense and fabricating strawmen.

I don't need to prove the case that it wouldn't,  because I've never made that argument, or anything like it!

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
It's your lack of business sense that destroys your case, you just can't cut business of at the knees and expect the country to prosper, let alone survive.
Unfortunately people have come dependent on Govt, like VA benefits, even though they too are unconstitutional.

Lack of business sense.... cut  business off at the knees...!  Wow!

More astonishing strawmen!

First off, I not only have business sense, but have a Masters, not that it's relevant

Secondly.  Government does not create "business".  Government stifles business, throttles business and chokes business.   The reason we have such a prolonged economic decline now, is the same reason the Great Depression endured so long, and that is that the Democrats created the collapse, and then plied it with even more regulation, more mandate, more government dictate, and more burden on the economy,  with things like ObamaCare.  All this and ongoing uncertainties keeping business in a state of trepidation as to what to do next, not to mention every individual American wondering what's happening with their government and freedoms!

You're spouting even more socialist progressive nonsense! This is all the crap that the big-government Leftists are saying.  At least first wipe the stain from around your face if you're going to drink so heavily from their trough!

This is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored, and not ANY sort of argument why they can be disregarded with and pretend nothing wrong is going on!

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
Show how your plan will not result in a complete collapse of the country, and again, keep it short, I didn't even read the crap you just posted, more long winded BS.

The growth and prosperity of this country up through the roaring twenties shows how this plan will not result in the complete collapse of the country.!

Your plan is nothing but the certain death of the country, economy and freedom,  and spouting nothing but statist nonsense, and we've got every single totalitarian fascist regime to support that too.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me  ?  Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip  ?

Yep. We're thinking of changing the name to the Trotsky Memorial Forum..

QuoteThis is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored

How?
It will have to involve at least hundreds of thousands of citizens, marching on Washington...and staying there. That's my opinion anyway.

We shouldn't even be having this conversation; granted, government's illegitimacy has been decades, (or more), in the making, but I really thought that either congress or the supreme court would have neutered Obama by now. He only grows bolder.

Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 10:32:51 AM
What's wrong with you? Is this some problematic understanding on your part, or are you deliberately stating things I've nowhere said, going from denying women and blacks the vote, to this?

No, I never said "we need to remove all government".   THere's a major difference between "all government" and "illegitimate government", and it doesn't involve "of the last 200 years" which is nothing but a heavy-handed addition that you added for effect,  having no relevance either. 

This claim of "removing all government" is exactly what Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Polisi and all the leftists say when we indicate the need to remove illegitimate government!  Then they make claims like "polluted water and air", and returning blacks to slavery, and going back to "live by lamplight".... all nothing but unfounded hysteria!

You're spouting nonsense and fabricating strawmen.

I don't need to prove the case that it wouldn't,  because I've never made that argument, or anything like it!

Lack of business sense.... cut  business off at the knees...!  Wow!

More astonishing strawmen!

First off, I not only have business sense, but have a Masters, not that it's relevant

Secondly.  Government does not create "business".  Government stifles business, throttles business and chokes business.   The reason we have such a prolonged economic decline now, is the same reason the Great Depression endured so long, and that is that the Democrats created the collapse, and then plied it with even more regulation, more mandate, more government dictate, and more burden on the economy,  with things like ObamaCare.  All this and ongoing uncertainties keeping business in a state of trepidation as to what to do next, not to mention every individual American wondering what's happening with their government and freedoms!

You're spouting even more socialist progressive nonsense! This is all the crap that the big-government Leftists are saying.  At least first wipe the stain from around your face if you're going to drink so heavily from their trough!

This is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored, and not ANY sort of argument why they can be disregarded with and pretend nothing wrong is going on!

The growth and prosperity of this country up through the roaring twenties shows how this plan will not result in the complete collapse of the country.!

Your plan is nothing but the certain death of the country, economy and freedom,  and spouting nothing but statist nonsense, and we've got every single totalitarian fascist regime to support that too.

More nonsense, and you're right, a Masters means nothing.
As a retired defense contractor, I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship for their livelihood, and as unconstitutional as most of it is, it's part of our business culture now, and to end it over night is pure suicide.
You do know that even those that have absolutely nothing to do with Govt are also suppliers to those that are, it has a long reach into our business community.
Did you learn nothing in your college pursuit towards your masters?

You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.

Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.

Just try and put yourself in the place of an unemployable person due to disability, now multiply that by millions, because that's what the country would look like, a crippled mess of unemployabe, many of those currently employed only know Govt work.
Do you think these people won't go down without a fight? Of course they won't, they will survive anyway they can, whether it's simple theft, to murder, the country would be in total turmoil.
Remember our enemies? They will see this as an opportunity as well.

Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 01:18:25 PM
More nonsense, and you're right, a Masters means nothing.
As a retired defense contractor, I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship for their livelihood, and as unconstitutional as most of it is, it's part of our business culture now, and to end it over night is pure suicide.
You do know that even those that have absolutely nothing to do with Govt are also suppliers to those that are, it has a long reach into our business community.
Did you learn nothing in your college pursuit towards your masters?

You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.

Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.

Just try and put yourself in the place of an unemployable person due to disability, now multiply that by millions, because that's what the country would look like, a crippled mess of unemployabe, many of those currently employed only know Govt work.
Do you think these people won't go down without a fight? Of course they won't, they will survive anyway they can, whether it's simple theft, to murder, the country would be in total turmoil.
Remember our enemies? They will see this as an opportunity as well.

Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

I would love to see a quick return to constitutional government, but the logistics make it impossible...unless I'm missing something.
The victims of the democrat created welfare state, cannot be ignored. They number in the millions, and lack any education, skills, or motivation to become gainfully employed. They have become fully dependent, and not by choice...the democrats have convinced them that they have a right to do absolutely nothing, and be cared for by society.

It's hard to describe how ill this makes me; and the democrats win elections by promising that it will continue forever.