| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I'm convinced the founders knew that what they built wouldn't last forever. In fact, I would bet that they would have pegged our downfall within a generation or two. Still, what they put together was an amazing government. Without a doubt, the best the world has seen. It's a shame what we have done with it. Sadly, I'm in agreement with Ft_bstrd, in that our Republic is dead, or at least beyond any hope of returning to what the Constitution says it should be. I do disagree very strongly that the 2016 nominee is irrelevant. A strong conservative (not just someone with an R next to their name) could still make a difference. That difference only has to do with the speed of the fall though. Younger generations have been so dis-served by their public educations that they don't even know what has been done to them. My personal plan is to fall back to a rural area that will be slower to fall into the abyss. I have no children to be concerned about, and I'm kind of glad that I don't have to worry about what my kids will have to deal with in the decades ahead. I will likely live long enough to know for certain if my assessment on all of this is correct. I'm really hoping that we can hold off on the stuff really hitting the fan until I've passed along. In that respect, to me at least, having a leader such as an Allen West vs. a Hillary Clinton makes a huge difference. Still, that difference will be slight as how the US is written into history. Yes, the Titanic has hit an iceberg. It is too late to prevent that from happening. Any idea which way to the lifeboats? | ||
| Pwnzor |
All the bullets in the world won't give those who possess them the testicular fortitude to take the life of another person. There may be some incidents, but the rank and file government paper pusher isn't going to strike any fear into my heart... no matter how many there are. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Of the 8 REPUBLICAN primaries, Conservative candidates lost 7 out of 8. This is within the Republican party. A Conservative candidate will face not only a mobilized left but a divided right. Establishment Republicans are more interested in managing the growth of government in order to enrich themselves than they are interested in pressing conservative ideals and defending the Constitution. Constitutional conservatives are more interested in scorched earth, no true Scotsman campaigns whereby if you don't support THEIR candidate then they are taking their ball and going home (yes I'm talking about you Ron Paul supporters). Republican leadership lacks the stomach to press Constitutional authority. We will get a Hillary or a Jeb before we will get a Cruz or Walker. The Press will make sure of that. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Pwnzor, you are looking at it all wrong. If I make you dependent upon government and then take away that support, you will do anything, ANYTHING, to keep your family fed. Even signing up for Federal service. Paper pushers no. Desperate serfs, absolutely. See feudal Europe. (Message edited by Ft bstrd on March 02, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
Well a true conservative candidate may not stand a chance of ever getting elected. That we can agree on. Still, the candidate matters. It does matter that we will almost certainly suffer with a candidate that would run from Reagan ideals, much less a true Constitutionalist. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'm praying for a Reagan, but this ain't 1980. Too many of our population lovingly embrace the very ideals we were at war with in 1980. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. I don't see a President, even a very good, Conservative one causing those ruled by envy and Class warfare to give up those ideals. | ||
| Sifo |
It's time to embrace the horror! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
We are overdue. Our population operates under two mutually exclusive ideologies. It's time to put those convictions to the test. It'll be the loudest, scariest, bloodiest event in human history. | ||
| Sifo |
Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of suffering to come before the masses rise against the oppression. | ||
| Patches |
Pwnzor, There is no Difference between Obama, the Clinton and the Bush Family there all related. Reindog, Rand Paul wants to Change the Rules so he can run for President and for re-election to the Senate at the same time in 2016... (Change the Rules!) http://www.dailyyonder.com/presidency-obamas-genes http://www.geni.com/path/Queen+Elizabeth+II+is+rel ated+to+Barack+H+Obama+44th+President+of+the+USA?f rom=6000000003075071669&to=6000000010349180549 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10 /barack-obama-related-to-sarah-palin-rush-limbaugh -bush.html http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-related-to-m any-u-s-presidents-including-bush | ||
| Sifo |
Rand Paul wants to Change the Rules so he can run for President and for re-election to the Senate at the same time in 2016... That would be a state issue, not federal. Some states do allow running for multiple offices, others don't. Really not that big of a deal IMO. Certainly not as bad as taking an office and immediately starting to campaign for the next office. That's something that Hilliary and BO have in common. | ||
| S2t_bama |
FB and others who have said that our constitutional republic is a thing of the past. When or what event do you point at to make this argument? Even if you think it was really just a continuous slide, surely there must be one point of no return to which you would point? | ||
| Sifo |
FB and others who have said that our constitutional republic is a thing of the past. When or what event do you point at to make this argument? Even if you think it was really just a continuous slide, surely there must be one point of no return to which you would point? One of the most honest things Progressives have done is to call Progressiveism Progressiveism. It's a progressive disease that works it's way a single notch at a time. The key is to move the ball in a way that simply can't be easily undone. Starting the Social Security system is a key example of this. I do see ObamaCare as one of the final blows to the Republic. There have been many smaller blows along the way. Certainly the liberal takeover of our schools and media have been a huge move forward for Progressives. We are now entering an era where they are openly embracing communism at the same time that the best of the free democracies are being shunned. I offer Cuba and Israel as examples. | ||
| Patches |
September 11, 2001 | ||
| Sifo |
September 11, 2001 Please elaborate. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
First steps were following the Civil War. State's Rights were significantly diminished following the conclusion of hostilities. Progressive ideals became prevalent globally in the mid to late 1800s and became politically mainstream in the early 1900s. Woodrow Wilson, FDR. The Great Depression was the next big milestone. During the depression, the Federal government offered tax dollars to States which adopted federal programs. That tactic is alive and thriving today (See Common Core, Obamacare). Social Security and Medicare spawned during this time as well. If you look at how it was initially sold and how it developed just during FDR's Presidency, you can see Progressivism in action. The advent of the "Military Industrial Complex" brought corporate and government goals for Federal growth into concerted efforts that continue today. The institutionalization of croney capitalism that spread from the military to every facet of government spending. The Great Society efforts were a doubling and tripling down on the efforts started during the Great Depression. The advent of Agencyism, creation of agencies answerable only to the President. The stacking of the Supreme Court with political appointees in conjunction with judicial activisim. The breakdown of delineated Constitutional roles between the co-equal branches. Executive Orders become law. Judicial opinion becomes law. Agency policy becomes law. All without Congressional oversight. Even though the ONLY branch tasked with the creation of law is the Legislative branch. Underpinning all of this is an educational system that is more about indoctrination than education steeped in progressive ideology. Right now, the only real measure preventing a Presidential monarchy is the 22nd Amendment. If Obama were eligible for more than two terms, he would run and he would likely win. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on March 02, 2015) | ||
| Patches |
I cannot explain it to you sifo. You will half to do your own research and decide for yourself. P.S. Be Quick "Net Neutrality" is about to take the research away. All you will be left with is the "Lies" of the Main Stream Media. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, obviously the Knights Of Malta. Or those guys who drum naked in the woods. Not George Soros or whoever paid Barry's tuition and to seal his college records. Btw how Do you do that? Ft. Has the history right. I'm refusing to give up on peaceful resolution. However since the folk Obama admires are fine with re-education camps and mass murder, and the foreign folk he supports love gang rape as a social force, I may be optimistic. | ||
| S2t_bama |
FB, most people don't look back that far, but I totally agree. The first blow was the death blow, and all since then has been death throes. Now it remains a question of how long we can keep the corpse animated before it rots away completely. It's too bad that such a noble cause had such a horrible side effect. It's like a cancer patient that dies from side effects of chemotherapy. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
44% of Americans are on some sort of government assistance. Add to that another 42M seniors receiving social security and Medicare, and roughly 52% of all Americans receive some sort of check from the government each and every year. 47% of all households pay nothing in income taxes and are net positive recipients of dollars once you add in EIC, child tax credit, etc. So you now have a potential majority of the population who will vote against anyone who threatens to downsize government or return it to its rightful banks because to do so directly impacts their financial wellbeing. In fact, these same folks will vote in individuals who overtly promise to stick it to the rich out of the belief that they will be the eventual beneficiaries of the grift. Obama promised to target the wealthy, and he did and was re-elected. Twice. Progressivism is based in greed and envy. The consumption of the fruits of the labor of another out of a sense of "fairness" secured by force. If 50% of the population wants it, you now get it regardless of what the 49% want. In fact, even when 60%,70%,80% don't want it, you still get it. This can only happen with an unlimited government. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Direct Democracy, as a form of government, was soundly rejected. The Framers didn't want mob rule. They knew that 50%+1 would rape and pillage the 50%-1 unless there were limits placed on government. Article 1,Section 8 spelled out the specific powers granted to the Federal government. If those powers were not specifically granted to the Federal government, the Federal government didn't have the power. Period. The first act of the new government was to create the first Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. In case there were any doubts as to the limits of government, these first ten Amendments codified natural law and provides additional specific limits on what the Federal government could and couldn't do. The Tenth Amendment was an even further clarification. It's a catch all clause. If the power isn't specifically granted to the Federal government, then that power is reserved to the states. Period. If 50%+1 want the Federal government to do something, tough. If it's not specifically granted as a power of the government you simply can't do it. The ONLY way outlined within the Constitution to grant the Federal government additional powers is outlined in Article V, the provision to create new Amendments. It requires 2/3 of the States or Congress to create an Amendment, and it takes a majority of 3/4 of the states to ratify the Amendment. That is a very high threshold intended to limit the powers granted to the Federal government. What has destroyed the Constitution has been the creation of "implied powers" from whole cloth. We are now governed by two principles: The Interstate Commerce Clause: interpreted to grant the Federal government the power to regulate all commerce. The General Welfare Clause: the power to take any action which the Federal government deems in the best interest in the promotion of the general welfare of the populace. Under these two provisions, there are now no powers denied the Federal government including the temporary or permanent abrogation of Constitutionally protected rights. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on March 02, 2015) | ||
| Reindog |
There must be a fundamental reduction in the Federal government to prevent eventual insurrection. The money will run out when there aren't any more Middle Class citizens to fleece. The Upper Class already pays their "fair" share whatever in the world that means. Absent the theft from the Middle Class, the Fed has to resort to accelerate printing fiat money...until the music stops. The abolition of the Department of Education and the EPA are two such agencies that immediately come to mind. A semblance of the IRS is necessary but that monster threatens every single American in a fashion that is increasingly reminiscent of Stalinism. A big thank you to the posters here who make reasoned arguments. The rest need to remove their tinfoil hats. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I make reasoned arguments AND wear tinfoil hats.  | ||
| Sifo |
I cannot explain it to you sifo. You will half to do your own research and decide for yourself. While I was expecting about that much from you, I though it would be worth a try. You prove yourself to be nothing but an internet troll typing away in your onesie. I would say that some of our response to 9/11 has added to the downfall, but isn't all that significant. I doubt we would agree on specific points however. I have little that I can point to where F_B might have it wrong. Nothing wrong with a good stylish tin foil hat! | ||
| Sifo |
And of course it continues with offering the "earned income tax credit" to illegal aliens who have never even filed a tax form. So let's see, will this encourage, or discourage people to illegally cross our borders? Instant freeloaders! What could possibly go wrong? | ||
| Patches |
Six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, a sweeping new law that was passed in great haste and secrecy, and that many regard as riddled with flaws that seriously compromise our fundamental freedoms. As presently defined the Act: · Permits clandestine searches of the homes of American citizens suspected of no crimes; · Authorizes searches of the private records of libraries, businesses, physicians, hospitals, banks, schools and other organizations without probable cause; · Creates a vague new crime known as "domestic terrorism," applicable even to lawful protests; · Authorizes arbitrary surveillance of religious services and political forums; · Permits detention of American citizens without benefit of due process or counsel; !!!!!"RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront the witnesses against them."!!!!!... http://usbillofrights.org/patact.html May God Bless You Sifo. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The Patriot act was a flawed piece of legislation at a time of great fear and peril. I don't fault the enactment of the Patriot Act at the time it was enacted. I fault the legislators who kept it in place. Republicans haven't held congressional power since 2006. As such, the Patriot Act is on the head of Progressives going on 9 years. The Patriot Act is set to sunset June of 2015. We'll see if the Republican held Congress will pass it or allow it to sunset or the Progressive president will sign it or veto it. I guess we'll see what happens. While the Patriot act was bad law, I don't see it as the point where we turned the corner. | ||
| Patches |
Like I said- "You will half to do your own research and decide for yourself." Legally "The Bill of Rights" does not Exist anymore. May God Bless You to Ft_bstrd | ||
| Court |
>>>The abolition of the Department of Education and the EPA are two such agencies that immediately come to mind. I've love for someone to tell me what either of these agencies does. I am heavily involved, at present, with a project with huge environmental requirements. I'm dealing with the USACE, NYSDEP and the various other local environmental agencies. The USDOE is worthless. | ||
| Reindog |
Patches, The grammar police are watching you. You half to be vigilant to. --Goldstein out. |
