55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 12:46 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Those talking , listening, and non-screaming 35 to 55 year old people are visible on the videos I've seen, as well as from attending those meetings myself. Perhaps you watch videos from which such people are edited.


then post some.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 01:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What the American people are reacting to is the misinformation and the inconsistent message they're getting from Obama and the media. We are all confused! We still don't know how much it's going to cost and how we're going to pay for it.

You still don't know? Hint: It will always be more than estimated, alot more, and it will break the bank, just like every other government bureaucracy ever created. No need to be confused about that, just look at history.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 08:44 am
I expect the howls of protest and 'foul' to be long and loud from the Left re the article below.

But I wonder if they would say so if it was George W. Bush suggesting putting together his own civilian security (police?) force? Who was using corporate influence to control more and more of the media and was asking for ability to control the internet? If there was suggestion that threat of a pandemic (H1N1) might call for a temporary order for martial law? If President Bush was installing scores of czars and putting others in authority to direct virtually every aspect of government--people who go through no vetting process, some of whom are from quite radical backgrounds, and who have no accountability to Congress or anybody else?

Much ado about nothing? Maybe. But as we are seeing on this thread, many are willing to hand over their freedoms to a government they seem to trust implicitly. Whether or not many fears arising are founded, I think approving giving freedoms away to the government is a dangerous attitude to have.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. -John Stuart Mill

Freedom may come quickly in robes of peace or after ages of conflict and war, but come it will, and abide it will, so long as the principles by which it was acquired are held sacred. - Edward Everett


Freedom dies with every individual; it is not reborn with his successors; it must be achieved anew, generation by generation. - Henry M. Wriston

Quote:
Broun warns of dictatorship
Congressman stays on message - freedom at risk

By BLAKE AUED

MADISON - U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is again raising the specter of Democrats turning the United States into a totalitarian state.

Broun, R-Athens, apparently has not changed his belief that President Obama may be a fascist since he made similar remarks in Augusta in November and then in an Associated Press interview.

He told a meeting of the Morgan County Republicans on Wednesday night that Obama already has or will have the three things he needs to make himself a dictator: a national police force, gun control and control over the press.

"He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government," Broun said. "And so we need to be ever-vigilant, because freedom is precious."

As he did when comparing Obama to Hitler and the Soviets last year, Broun cited a speech Obama gave in Colorado during the campaign last July calling for "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

In the speech, Obama called young Americans to serve both at home and abroad, and said he would expand the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and other volunteer opportunities. Broun, however, said Obama was referring to a national police force.

"'The liberals say, 'What is wrong with Americorps?' " Broun said. "Well, this is not Americorps."

Broun also said he thinks the national media is openly supporting Obama's policies. He also said he believes the president and Attorney General Eric Holder will enact new gun-control policies.

Holder said in February that he wants to renew a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, but Obama said in April that he is putting the issue on the back burner.

Broun also cited the dozens of so-called "czars" Obama has appointed to oversee areas like the troubled car industry as evidence that he is overstepping his bounds to seek power.

"They're developing a shadow government that (does not) answer to the American people," Broun said.

At a town hall meeting in Clarkesville last month, Broun called Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a "socialistic elite" and agreed with a constituent who said they might use a flu pandemic to declare martial law.

"They're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," Broun said. "We've seen that historically."

More than 1,000 people combined turned out to hear Broun speak mostly on the topic of health care at town hall meetings Wednesday in Madison and Greene County.

About 300 attended the Madison meeting. At Lake Oconee, the audience filled three 300-seat movie theaters, where Broun spoke on the invitation of three local doctors who have been giving presentations on Democrats' proposals for health care reform, said Bob Cowles, one of the organizers. Broun spoke live in one theater, while crowds in the other two listened in over a closed circuit.

Health care reform also is about Democrats seeking more power, Broun said.

"It gives them more power, more control over your life," he said.

Health care is too expensive, he said, and he attributed the cost to government regulations like HIPPA, a 1996 patient privacy and insurance portability law. Rather than create a government-run insurance program to compete with private insurers, the current system's framework should be kept, but with changes like expanded tax-free health savings accounts, more tax credits for medical expenses and tax breaks for doctors who provide charity care, Broun said.

"Just like (when) you have a dog with fleas, you don't kill the dog, you put on a flea collar," he said.

Broun has scheduled another town hall meeting for 10 a.m. Tuesday at the Oconee County Civic Center.

Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Thursday, September 03, 2009
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090309/new_489061975.shtml
FreeDuck
 
  5  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 08:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

But I wonder if they would say so if it was George W. Bush suggesting putting together his own civilian security (police?) force?

Other than a single, out of context, and misinterpreted line from a speech (to civilian security forces -- police) what evidence do you and our good wacky congressman have that this will happen?

Quote:
Who was using corporate influence to control more and more of the media and was asking for ability to control the internet?

Please explain. How is he using "corporate influence" to control the media and when did he ask for the ability to "control the internet"?

Quote:
If there was suggestion that threat of a pandemic (H1N1) might call for a temporary order for martial law?

Link?
Quote:
If President Bush was installing scores of czars and putting others in authority to direct virtually every aspect of government--people who go through no vetting process, some of whom are from quite radical backgrounds, and who have no accountability to Congress or anybody else?

Obama is not the first president to appoint "czars". Please explain your complaint -- too many czars? too wacky czars? what?

Quote:
Much ado about nothing? Maybe. But as we are seeing on this thread, many are willing to hand over their freedoms to a government they seem to trust implicitly. Whether or not many fears arising are founded, I think approving giving freedoms away to the government is a dangerous attitude to have.

Ironic after the last 8 years of arguing against due process rights and for the need of the government to be able to eavesdrop on US citizens without a warrant and advocating giving up freedom for security you now return to lecture us about handing over freedoms. So I'll ask you the same question that was often asked of me in threads about torture, enemy combatant designations, and warrantless wiretapping -- what freedoms are we handing over?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:01 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I expect the howls of protest and 'foul' to be long and loud from the Left re the article below.



Why would anyone cry foul, about that article? It does a great job highlighting what an idiot Rep. Broun is. A fine article, if you ask me.

My favorite part:

Quote:

Health care is too expensive, he said, and he attributed the cost to government regulations like HIPPA, a 1996 patient privacy and insurance portability law. Rather than create a government-run insurance program to compete with private insurers, the current system's framework should be kept, but with changes like expanded tax-free health savings accounts, more tax credits for medical expenses and tax breaks for doctors who provide charity care, Broun said.


A Republican pushing tax cuts as a solution to life's problems?

Shocking!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Why on earth would they need to LOAN money to do any of those things?

If you think it authorizes the loaning of money then why can't they loan money to anyone? If they can loan money for commerce as you underlined doesn't that authorize the government to loan to businesses?

The Constitution grants the feds the power to loan money to those people who do the work of the feds. Those loans constitute money earned by their employees, which is used by the feds to buy employee benefits. Those employee benefits the fed buys enable the feds to attract people to become and remain their employees until they retire.

Since not everyone is a fed employee, retired employee, or contractor, everyone is not contributing to the common defense and general welfare of the United States by working on the specific powers I underlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

The feds cannot loan money to other than employees, retired employees, or contractors who work on regulating commerce, because the feds are not granted the power by the Constitution to make such other loans.

However, if you believe the feds are not granted the power by the Constitution to make loans to their employees, then you must necessarily agree that the feds are not granted the power by the Constitution to loan money to anyone.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:44 am
Commenting on one of Freeduck's observations, here is what Obama said:


Now American Thinker, certainly no advocate for Obama or his policies, tends to agree with Freeduck that Obama didn't mean what he said in that video. Their take is that his intent is to enlist a massive 'community organization force' ala ACORN.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

If American Thinker has it right, would that be better?

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:46 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:

The Constitution grants the feds the power to loan money to those people who do the work of the feds.
Please cite the section. There is NOTHING about 'loans' in the section you posted earlier.

If the constitution authorizes loans to employees, then Obama could have legally loaned himself $3 trillion, could he not?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:46 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
"And so we need to be ever-vigilant, because freedom is precious."


This piece of idiocy, or others similar in nature, are often bandied about by fear mongers like this idiot, Broun. It's similar in nature to the all too common whining of prescriptivists, warning of the imminent decline of language. That too, dupes a lot of real dumb folk, those "quick, move over so I too can get on the bandwagon" people.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:47 am
@okie,
You're just parroting what conservatives say; give me some detail. "A lot more" is no answer; it's typical conservative fear-mongering.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 09:50 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What the American people are reacting to is the misinformation and the inconsistent message they're getting from Obama and the media. We are all confused! We still don't know how much it's going to cost and how we're going to pay for it.

You still don't know? Hint: It will always be more than estimated, alot more, and it will break the bank, just like every other government bureaucracy ever created. No need to be confused about that, just look at history.


Every other government bureaucracy invented hasn't 'broke the bank.' In fact, it's fair to say that almost none of them have; we run our government at a higher level of service and a lower level of taxation than at any other point in the last century or so.

It is true, that we should be trimming some services and raising taxes somewhat to address the imbalances we have; but the phrase 'break the bank,' hardly.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
@joefromchicago,
Joe we are not debating whether or not the Constitution should or should not be interpreted. We are debating HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. I say the Constitution should be interpreted according to the common definitions of words in which it is written. You say, or I think you say, the Constitution should be interpreted according to what federal judges presume to be the current needs of the people.

I say federal judges are not granted the power by the Constitution to redefine, legislate, or amend the Constitution. You say, or I think you say, federal judges are granted the power by the Constitution to redefine, legislate, or amend the Constitution. Well, if you can identify that grant of power in the Constitution, or can show how the Constituion can be interpreted to grant that power, THEN DO IT or SHOW IT.

You criticize my definitions as not being those from "a legal dictionary." But you fail to provide alternate definitions from "a legal dictionary" that you think contradict the definitions I used.

In brief, your arguments to support your beliefs are "as phony as the proverbial three dollar bill."

ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:13 am
@DontTreadOnMe,
Those talking , listening, and non-screaming 35 to 55 year old people are visible on the videos I've seen, as well as from attending town hall and tea party meetings myself. Perhaps you watch videos from which such people are edited.

Should you care to provide videos that show otherwise, then post them. Alternatively, tune in Fox News videos of those meetings, or examine the photos of those meetings published in the WSJ.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:31 am
@parados,
The Constitution IMPLICITLY grants the feds the power to loan money to those people who do the work of the feds. Also the Constitution IMPLICITLY grants the feds the power to pay money to those people--called employees and contractors--who do the work of the feds.

Obama, a federal employee, could have legally gotten the federal treasury to loan him $3 trillion, if the Congress had authored a bill for Obama to sign that authorized Obama to borrow $3 trillion from the federal treasury. Congress has and does in fact authorize federal employees to be paid from the federal treasury the money they earn and the money they borrow by doing their work for the feds.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:38 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You're just parroting what conservatives say; give me some detail. "A lot more" is no answer; it's typical conservative fear-mongering.

You, Cice, are accusing okie of doing exactly what you and the rest of your collectivist, statist, leftist comrads are doing.

I first encountered that behavior as a teenager observing the Nazis seizing and holding on to dictatorial powers.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:42 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
This piece of idiocy, or others similar in nature, are often bandied about by fear mongers like this idiot, Broun. It's similar in nature to the all too common whining of prescriptivists, warning of the imminent decline of language. That too, dupes a lot of real dumb folk, those "quick, move over so I too can get on the bandwagon" people.

You, JTT, are accusing Foxfyre of doing exactly what you and the rest of your collectivist, statist, leftist comrads are doing.

I first encountered that behavior as a teenager observing the Nazis seizing, growing, and holding on to dictatorial powers.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:47 am
@Foxfyre,
I've seen that video several times, mostly posted by okie. But here's what I asked:
FreeDuck wrote:

Other than a single, out of context, and misinterpreted line from a speech (to civilian security forces -- police) what evidence do you and our good wacky congressman have that this will happen?

We can play "interpret the meaning" all we want to but what evidence do you have that he's planning some sort of Obama Revolutionary Guard?
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 11:16 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Joe we are not debating whether or not the Constitution should or should not be interpreted. We are debating HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. I say the Constitution should be interpreted according to the common definitions of words in which it is written. You say, or I think you say, the Constitution should be interpreted according to what federal judges presume to be the current needs of the people.

Basically, you think you're a constitutional authority and the USSC is not. You decide what "common definitions" are as opposed to legal ones which are not necessarily common usage.

The constitution is interpreted by the USSC, and that is exactly the power they have. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it unconstitutional, nor does a USSC ruling on an interpretation mean that the USSC is out of control.

You just want it your way.

T
K
O
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 11:23 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The Constitution IMPLICITLY grants the feds the power to loan money to those people who do the work of the feds. Also the Constitution IMPLICITLY grants the feds the power to pay money to those people--called employees and contractors--who do the work of the feds.

Obama, a federal employee, could have legally gotten the federal treasury to loan him $3 trillion, if the Congress had authored a bill for Obama to sign that authorized Obama to borrow $3 trillion from the federal treasury. Congress has and does in fact authorize federal employees to be paid from the federal treasury the money they earn and the money they borrow by doing their work for the feds.

So in other words you are saying it would be OK if the TARP funds were simply a loan to the President and then he did whatever he wanted with them such as giving the money to banks and auto companies.

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 11:24 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Joe we are not debating whether or not the Constitution should or should not be interpreted. We are debating HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. I say the Constitution should be interpreted according to the common definitions of words in which it is written. You say, or I think you say, the Constitution should be interpreted according to what federal judges presume to be the current needs of the people.

I can't imagine how you jumped to that conclusion.

ican711nm wrote:
I say federal judges are not granted the power by the Constitution to redefine, legislate, or amend the Constitution. You say, or I think you say, federal judges are granted the power by the Constitution to redefine, legislate, or amend the Constitution. Well, if you can identify that grant of power in the Constitution, or can show how the Constituion can be interpreted to grant that power, THEN DO IT or SHOW IT.

And I doubt that you can show how the power to interpret the constitution has been given exclusively to you and the editors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

ican711nm wrote:
You criticize my definitions as not being those from "a legal dictionary." But you fail to provide alternate definitions from "a legal dictionary" that you think contradict the definitions I used.

Most of the important words and phrases in the constitution have been authoritatively interpreted by the supreme court. There's little need to rely on a dictionary when there's over 200 years of supreme court precedent that's directly on point.

ican711nm wrote:
In brief, your arguments to support your beliefs are "as phony as the proverbial three dollar bill."

Don't you mean a "three-dollar security?"
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.76 seconds on 12/04/2024 at 08:29:25