Limbaugh Fill-In Advocates Secession: ‘I’d Like To See’ Whether ‘We Could Have A Sovereign Nation’ In April, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) drew headlines when he warned that his state might secede from the United States “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” Perry’s invocation of secession has since been endorsed by Fox News’ Glenn Beck and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
More recently, radical “tenthers” in Texas, who were heartened by Perry’s comments, held a rally in the state capitol advocating for Texas to secede. On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, his fill-in host, Walter E. Williams, pushed the idea to Limbaugh’s millions of listeners:
WILLIAMS: Look, Mark, I don’t know what we’re going to do. That is, one of the questions, one of the issues is that we may be like other great nations of the past. Other great nations like Rome and Great Britain and go down the tube. Now, there’s a group of people. There’s kind of a wild hope or a remote possibility. There’s a group of young people. They call themselves freestateproject.org. And these young people are trying to get 20,000 Americans to move to the state of New Hampshire and peacefully take over the political system, you know, through voting and things like that and elect their own congressmen and senators. And then having done so, they wish, they want to negotiate with the United States Congress to obey the United States Constitution. Now, some members of the group, not all of them, some members of the group say that if they can’t get Congress to obey the United States Constitution, they’re going to issue a unilateral declaration of independence, become a separate nation. Now, I don’t know whether that’s going to work. The last time it didn’t work, but the first time in 1776, it did work. And so, I think we’re batting 500 and I’d like to see whether we could break the tie. Whether we could have a sovereign nation. This isn’t the first time that Williams has advocated secession. In a 2002 column, while endorsing the Free State Project, Williams wrote that they want to “move to one state, possibly New Hampshire, peaceably take over the legislature, negotiate with Congress to obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and, if necessary, secede from the Union.” In 2007, after the conservative “Mallard Fillmore” comic strip promoted him as a potential presidential candidate, Williams declined, saying that he favored Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). In April 2009, Paul said that “secession is a very much American principle
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Limbaugh Fill-In Advocates Secession: ‘I’d Like To See’ Whether ‘We Could Have A Sovereign Nation’ In April, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) drew headlines when he warned that his state might secede from the United States “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” Perry’s invocation of secession has since been endorsed by Fox News’ Glenn Beck and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).
More recently, radical “tenthers” in Texas, who were heartened by Perry’s comments, held a rally in the state capitol advocating for Texas to secede. On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today, his fill-in host, Walter E. Williams, pushed the idea to Limbaugh’s millions of listeners:
WILLIAMS: Look, Mark, I don’t know what we’re going to do. That is, one of the questions, one of the issues is that we may be like other great nations of the past. Other great nations like Rome and Great Britain and go down the tube. Now, there’s a group of people. There’s kind of a wild hope or a remote possibility. There’s a group of young people. They call themselves freestateproject.org. And these young people are trying to get 20,000 Americans to move to the state of New Hampshire and peacefully take over the political system, you know, through voting and things like that and elect their own congressmen and senators. And then having done so, they wish, they want to negotiate with the United States Congress to obey the United States Constitution. Now, some members of the group, not all of them, some members of the group say that if they can’t get Congress to obey the United States Constitution, they’re going to issue a unilateral declaration of independence, become a separate nation. Now, I don’t know whether that’s going to work. The last time it didn’t work, but the first time in 1776, it did work. And so, I think we’re batting 500 and I’d like to see whether we could break the tie. Whether we could have a sovereign nation. This isn’t the first time that Williams has advocated secession. In a 2002 column, while endorsing the Free State Project, Williams wrote that they want to “move to one state, possibly New Hampshire, peaceably take over the legislature, negotiate with Congress to obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and, if necessary, secede from the Union.” In 2007, after the conservative “Mallard Fillmore” comic strip promoted him as a potential presidential candidate, Williams declined, saying that he favored Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). In April 2009, Paul said that “secession is a very much American principle
LOL! So if they do secede, New Hampshire, how can their sustain the economy as a sovereign nation with just timber, sugar, and maple syrup as natural resources? Just craziness.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Until the federal government reads... and then ABIDES by the constitution there will be talk of secession. And rightfully so. I am fully in favor of secession when and if it is truly proposed.
Posted by raybond on :
So am I all that preach it are of the right ilk and I don't mean right in a political way I say leave and don't let the door hit you.
Posted by rounder1 on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Until the federal government reads... and then ABIDES by the constitution there will be talk of secession. And rightfully so. I am fully in favor of secession when and if it is truly proposed.
I do love the U.S. but I am not going to confine my present thoughts on the state of the U.S. by holding on to an idealized past. The country has been led down the wrong path by every administration if one were scrutinize them all. I think that it is the natural order of things in regards to government that overtime ,no matter how great the leadership over the years, they all go astray from what was originally intended.
The U.S. is no different in this regard. I will confess that I may be one to seriously consider secession if the right issue (catalyst) is present and if the right leadership emerges.
First, I would choose to live in a society where government is an afterthought amongst the majority of citizens......presently it is grasping control of so many different facets of our lives that that notion is impossible.
Second, if you choose to live in a society that is dependent upon government...it is in one's best interest to have that government be as small and streamlined as possible; otherwise it will be too big to serve.
The U.S. government is getting dangerously close to becoming lethargic to the point of death. For now it seems that a lot of great strides are being attempted....and they are great strides even if I personally feel that they are in the wrong direction....nevertheless it is too much too fast and completely unsustainable.
If there is ever another secession....it will be able to be credited to Washington's refusal follow the will of the people.....and that would be a sufficient catalyst.
Posted by a surfer on :
great post rounder
Posted by glassman on :
secession?
would that mean the NFL has to be called INFL?
Posted by glassman on :
maybe we should put this into a different perspective entirely, lets' talk about what secession would cost:
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid in '04:
1. D.C. ($6.17) Obama 2. North Dakota ($2.03) McCain 3. New Mexico ($1.89)Obama 4. Mississippi ($1.84)Mac 5. Alaska ($1.82)Mac 6. West Virginia ($1.74)Mac 7. Montana ($1.64)Mac 8. Alabama ($1.61)Mac 9. South Dakota ($1.59)Mac 10. Arkansas ($1.53)Mac
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)Obama 2. Connecticut ($0.64)Obama 3. New Hampshire ($0.68)Obama 4. Nevada ($0.73)Obama 5. Illinois ($0.77)Obam 6. Minnesota ($0.77)Obam 7. Colorado ($0.79)Obama 8. Massachusetts ($0.79)Obama 9. California ($0.81)Obama 10. New York ($0.81) Obama
odd how that works huh? think about it.
in '05 Texas comes in at .94$ FLA at 97cents CA? .78$
the "red states" as a whole take alot more of the Federal teat than the Blue states.
the numbers change year to year, but not much...
Posted by glassman on :
i'm also reminded of the people saying "he's not MY president"
i never hear that from liberals. i hear them complain plenty, but i only hear conservatives say "he's not MY president" i heard it plenty when Clinton was in and i hear it even more under Obama...
Posted by raybond on :
If they don't like the way things are and they don't like the the way we change things by law and the vote.
Get the hell out if here if that is your wish to do so. We don't need you and the money it takes to support all the loosers who want to go will be better off spent some place else.
There is no moral issue like slavery this time where we could not let an industry like that flourish on our soil anymore. I think succession is good way of ending a lot of conflict in this country. And since most of the states that want to succeed spong off the rest of us good-by babby get you fat cans moving. So we can enjoy the surplus that we worked hard for. As a matter of fact we will even give all of you califrnia lock stock an barrle. With that goofy goose stepping moron that runs it. our present to you. Now you can have warm beaches to live on just no tax payer money to enjoy.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Ray, it seems you believe the people are wrong and it is government that is right. I might point you to ten thousand years of history that show it has never been the case.
Posted by raybond on :
Well I have to agree with you on that mainly because the government even ours gets taken over by special wealthy interests. And the freedom we have can only so so far before that speaial group wants to slap it down.
Power is something that if granted has to be watched very close.
As far as secession goes I believe that if a large group wants to leave becuase they feel they have to,and they are not leaving to follow the path of a social crime like the slave trade I say let them leave History has shown us that we Americans have and still have many good relationships with people such as the Amish that are not part of any wordly government.We let them be why not others?
But to answer your Question I feel that even today enough people can change things in America and we do need all of us with differences to have a change take afect.Our Government is getting very opressive and something is going to give pretty soon I do hope the spirt of freedom wins out in the end
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
The concern about seccession that many don't consider is look as which states talk about it the loudest...
Now, look at which states have the LEAST restrictive gun laws...
See a pattern?
Texas is used as the pinata for this discussion but think what would happen if seccesion was actually realized and it became a 'hostile' neighbor and resources grew scarce.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: The concern about seccession that many don't consider is look as which states talk about it the loudest...
Now, look at which states have the LEAST restrictive gun laws...
See a pattern?
Texas is used as the pinata for this discussion but think what would happen if seccesion was actually realized and it became a 'hostile' neighbor and resources grew scarce.
How about you think about what happens when the Federal money spicket is turned of once a state secedes. The thought of seceding is idiotic at best.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
That's the point of my post, P. You have large numbers of people with resource issues and guns.
Now, there are two hypothetical end results for Texas I believe. First, private investment opportunities. Several of the environmental bans on oil production (off shore and on) would no longer be an hinderance. Second, the Wind Tunnel panhandle could now be utilized as environmental concerns about high voltage power cables would take a back seat to state sovereignty and survival. Texas would become a major energy player without Federal hinderances.
Second possibility is Mexican\other foreign involvement in supplying needs to gain a foothold on North American soil.
Either way, seccession is not neccessarily a suicidal act for this state in particular.
Posted by glassman on :
yeah and the Cowboys would be out of the NFC East...
Texas does not have the right to secede.
they were granted the right to divide into several states, but not secession.
i'm trying to remember what happened the last time somebody seceded? oh yeah, a few people got killed.....
Posted by raybond on :
I still say let them go if they want to Texas would fall apart in 30 days welfare ridden right to work state with one of the largest uneducated work forces in the country. A little oil which will be a lot less important as the years go by so they better secede quick. If your looking at the investment angle forget it without federal investment in there roads and communications they are done remmeber when you secede you are alone. They would be so weak that in 60 days if oil was an issue we could buy there oil on the gulf for our own price.
The biggest reason they can't go it alone is that they need the feds to survive now welfare without it texas is a vacume.
When we don't need to depend on oil as much there is a lot of flat land for windmills and a lot of hot air to push them there.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Glass, I'm not talking about the 'right' to seccede. I agree with you that nowhere in the Texas constitution does it say they can 'back out' of the United States 'deal'. Yes, the civil war killed more americans than any other war in our history. Yet, the south fought to maintain what they considered their right to govern themselves.
That's basically the same arguement that the revolutionary war was fought over. Does a body of people (any particular body) have the right to fight an oppressive government when the acts of said government are to the detriment of that body of people? It's not about legal pretense, that's simply a cover. It's about the moral obligation to not bend over and take it rather than fight for 'freedom' from said tyrany.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Ray, the problem that the Feds have is that as much of a drain on resources as any particular state may be, they can't allow anyone to seccede lest another state follow suit. It's an all or nothing situation. To let Texas go, means letting anyone back out that doesn't want to play ball on their (Fed gov's) terms.
Now, as far as Texas being a welfare state, what happens when they decide to stop covering illegal aliens? How much money does that free up? It may not be enough to run the state, but I'm willing to wager it's a good chunck of change.
One of the statistics I'll try to find tonight when I get home is how much money does each state contribute via federal tax burden vs. how much they receive in federal money. Ie which states are really drains and which are supporting the union. I would like to see how it compares to glass' links above.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: That's the point of my post, P. You have large numbers of people with resource issues and guns.
Now, there are two hypothetical end results for Texas I believe. First, private investment opportunities. Several of the environmental bans on oil production (off shore and on) would no longer be an hinderance. Second, the Wind Tunnel panhandle could now be utilized as environmental concerns about high voltage power cables would take a back seat to state sovereignty and survival. Texas would become a major energy player without Federal hinderances.
Second possibility is Mexican\other foreign involvement in supplying needs to gain a foothold on North American soil.
Either way, seccession is not neccessarily a suicidal act for this state in particular.
There are some many holes in your thinking iit's hard to know where to start. But I'll go with your claim that there would no longer be a hinderance to offshore oil production. LOL. Those are FEDERAL waters chief. And if Texass where to not follow the rules, the Texass navy would have it's hands full with the US Coast Gaurd(not Texass Coast Guard), and the US Navy(again, not Texass navy). Please! A state seceding from the Union reminds me of the old adage..."Cutting your nose off to spite your face."
Get real, it's not gonna happen. If you truly believe it will, then you should be the first, and tell the IRS you are no longer gonna pay your income taxes because your are seceding. Can you just imagine the taxes a seceded state would have to impose to make up for the lost gov't teet? LOL Posted by glassman on :
Texas is about even of Fed dollars according to my research.
of course they have alotof NASA and defense jobs there that would disappear.
there's nothing Putin would like better than to see the US begin to break up.
* DECEMBER 29, 2008
As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010
By ANDREW OSBORN
MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.
i been keeping an ear on Glen Beck, he's definitely spending alot of his media energy working seeding the idea of breaking up...
i don't listen to limbugger, but i have no doubt he's doing the same.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
Glen Beck, he's definitely spending alot of his media energy working seeding the idea of breaking up...
To me, that kind of talk should be considered treasonous. The guy is a scumbag.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Not trying to draw an exact parallel, Pagan, but the Founding Fathers' talk of revolution was treasonous as well. History has taken a kinder look on their behavior than did their contemporaries.
As far as Beck, I probably don't listen to him as much as others due to work constraints, but he seems to me to be more "Martin Luther" than an actual secessionist. Luther never intended to split from the Church, his theses simply pointed out where it had deviated from the Biblical record and advocated for a return to Christianity's original doctrines. Beck and many of the other 'Tenthers' appear to be calling for a similar return to the Constitutional purity that started this country on the road to Superpowerhood.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
Glen Beck, he's definitely spending alot of his media energy working seeding the idea of breaking up...
To me, that kind of talk should be considered treasonous. The guy is a scumbag.
Pagan, I haven't listened to Beck in quite some time so I'm not sure of his actual wording. However, if you call him treasonous for wanting to split from a tyrannical federal government then you sir are in direct opposition to the reasons this country was founded.
I also believe that if the federal government can not stop itself from violating the constitution it should be dismantled. If it is not dismantled then I fully support any states who wish to leave the union.
Let me guess... I'm guilty of treason for believing in the constitution....
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.:
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
Glen Beck, he's definitely spending alot of his media energy working seeding the idea of breaking up...
To me, that kind of talk should be considered treasonous. The guy is a scumbag.
Pagan, I haven't listened to Beck in quite some time so I'm not sure of his actual wording. However, if you call him treasonous for wanting to split from a tyrannical federal government then you sir are in direct opposition to the reasons this country was founded.
I also believe that if the federal government can not stop itself from violating the constitution it should be dismantled. If it is not dismantled then I fully support any states who wish to leave the union.
Let me guess... I'm guilty of treason for believing in the constitution....
I know you thrive on twisting what people post, so I won't even go there. But I am wondering, what has the current Administration done that is violating the constitution? Now the previous Admin just simply stomped all over it. And how is the current Admin "tyrannical"? No rumors, just post some facts. And if you feel that strongly, and you want to leave the Union, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. JMO Posted by Relentless. on :
Violation of the bill of rights, namely the 4th, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.
I would say proof would require the ability to read... of course.
Start by reading... any news websites from CNN to Fox... BBC... Drudge.. Prison Planet...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Violation of the bill of rights, namely the 4th, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.
I would say proof would require the ability to read... of course.
Start by reading... any news websites from CNN to Fox... BBC... Drudge.. Prison Planet...
I'm sorry you lack the ability to read. Nice of you to confess that though. That should open some doors for you. Once you are able to read, please post examples of these violations that you espouse. The burden of proof is on you to support your wild claims. GL! Posted by T e x on :
Fellas? Texas ain't gonna secede--that's just Rick Perry trying to stay in office against Kay Bailey...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Fellas? Texas ain't gonna secede--that's just Rick Perry trying to stay in office against Kay Bailey...
Oh I agree with you Tex. It's all political posturing and bluster. No substance to it. I was just curious why Relentless was so supportive of the idea in general.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Not trying to draw an exact parallel, Pagan, but the Founding Fathers' talk of revolution was treasonous as well. History has taken a kinder look on their behavior than did their contemporaries.
As far as Beck, I probably don't listen to him as much as others due to work constraints, but he seems to me to be more "Martin Luther" than an actual secessionist. Luther never intended to split from the Church, his theses simply pointed out where it had deviated from the Biblical record and advocated for a return to Christianity's original doctrines. Beck and many of the other 'Tenthers' appear to be calling for a similar return to the Constitutional purity that started this country on the road to Superpowerhood.
it's the only way they can stay mainstream/legit SF. you may not be old enough to remember the Leave it to Beaver show but there was a character named Eddie Haskell.....
this is exactly the kind of talk Beck uses.
Constitutional purity that started this country on the road to Superpowerhood.
the problem is?
Superpowerhood was not acheived under any "Constitutional purity".
it was not acheived until WW2 under warbonds, 90% income tax in some cases, and complete Govt oversight/takeover of all industry, from chicken egg production to developing the nuke bombs.
like it or not? "Constitutional purity" under the Founding Fathers had slaves counting as a 3/5ths vote for congressioanl seats while they enjoyed no human rights whatsoever.
"Constitutional purity" is like the unicorn, it's a nice concept, but it's cliche, sortof like the term "Freedom" means you have nothin' left to lose....
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Violation of the bill of rights, namely the 4th, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.
I would say proof would require the ability to read... of course.
Start by reading... any news websites from CNN to Fox... BBC... Drudge.. Prison Planet...
I'm sorry you lack the ability to read. Nice of you to confess that though. That should open some doors for you. Once you are able to read, please post examples of these violations that you espouse. The burden of proof is on you to support your wild claims. GL!
I gave you the ability to find the evidence for yourself... You can also search this board for many of those articles.. Your lack of desire to do so means you are content with your bliss and unconcerned with its cause. Good enough for me.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Not trying to draw an exact parallel, Pagan, but the Founding Fathers' talk of revolution was treasonous as well. History has taken a kinder look on their behavior than did their contemporaries.
As far as Beck, I probably don't listen to him as much as others due to work constraints, but he seems to me to be more "Martin Luther" than an actual secessionist. Luther never intended to split from the Church, his theses simply pointed out where it had deviated from the Biblical record and advocated for a return to Christianity's original doctrines. Beck and many of the other 'Tenthers' appear to be calling for a similar return to the Constitutional purity that started this country on the road to Superpowerhood.
it's the only way they can stay mainstream/legit SF. you may not be old enough to remember the Leave it to Beaver show but there was a character named Eddie Haskell.....
this is exactly the kind of talk Beck uses.
Constitutional purity that started this country on the road to Superpowerhood.
the problem is?
Superpowerhood was not acheived under any "Constitutional purity".
it was not acheived until WW2 under warbonds, 90% income tax in some cases, and complete Govt oversight/takeover of all industry, from chicken egg production to developing the nuke bombs.
like it or not? "Constitutional purity" under the Founding Fathers had slaves counting as a 3/5ths vote for congressioanl seats while they enjoyed no human rights whatsoever.
"Constitutional purity" is like the unicorn, it's a nice concept, but it's cliche, sortof like the term "Freedom" means you have nothin' left to lose....
And where would we be without that timeline? I offer the notion that we would be in a better place. I support the notion that we would be moving towards a kindler gentler world where the only worthy goal would not be military conquest.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:"Constitutional purity" is like the unicorn, it's a nice concept, but it's cliche, sortof like the term "Freedom" means you have nothin' left to lose....
I see it less like the Unicorn and more of the search for the Holy Grail, Glass. You're not really likely to find it...but the journey itself has merit.
To simply bail on the entire concept of the Constitutional Basis of our government is to give in to the prevailing whims of the times. The Constitution is meant to be changed rarely and followed until it IS changed to make sure we don't do just that. To cling to the Constitution like Beck and the Tenthers seem to be doing isn't naive (imo) but simply holding fast against a slide away from what makes this country great...rule of LAW...not rule of money.
Call it naive...but I'm sure it makes it easier to sleep at night. (shrug)
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Fellas? Texas ain't gonna secede--that's just Rick Perry trying to stay in office against Kay Bailey...
No doubt, Tex. However, I think that talk of seccession is good in some ways. Just like that guy down the street from an Obama speech packing an AR on his back.
It's a reminder to those in power in our country that Americans are citizens...not subjects.
Posted by glassman on :
i dunno where we'd be.
we became an Agricultural superpower due to the fact that the Govt first contracted industry to provide millions of tons of explosives for the war, which gave the Capital needed to build the factories that ended up manufacturing cheap fertilisers when the war was over.
without the govt "seeding" the industry? fertilisers would never have become cheap enough to make them commonly available for all producers.
the Soviets had a similar program, but they used to harvest the grains wet because they showed more weight. they (bragging)posted hihger prodution levels but failed to properly dry the grain which in turn meant they lost most of it due to rot.
we nearly lost the midwest grain belt due to poor farming practices. it was govt intervention at all levels that turned that around. crop rotation, no-till, and fertilisers were all a direct result of govt intervention at basic levels.
my perspective is that government is able to take risks where private industry cannot. govt is still just people and cannot be trusted any more or less than any other entity tho.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i dunno where we'd be.
we became an Agricultural superpower due to the fact that the Govt first contracted industry to provide millions of tons of explosives for the war, which gave the Capital needed to build the factories that ended up manufacturing cheap fertilisers when the war was over.
without the govt "seeding" the industry? fertilisers would never have become cheap enough to make them commonly available for all producers.
the Soviets had a similar program, but they used to harvest the grains wet because they showed more weight. they (bragging)posted hihger prodution levels but failed to properly dry the grain which in turn meant they lost most of it due to rot.
we nearly lost the midwest grain belt due to poor farming practices. it was govt intervention at all levels that turned that around. crop rotation, no-till, and fertilisers were all a direct result of govt intervention at basic levels.
my perspective is that government is able to take risks where private industry cannot. govt is still just people and cannot be trusted any more or less than any other entity tho.
I agree that government can take risks that private companies can not. And I agree government can at times frontier new practices and methods to solve old problems. I do not however agree that private companies or people would not solve these same problems on their own... I work in an industry and for a company that solves problems every day... I watch and help as old problems are annihilated by smart and capable people without the aid of government.
Your example about the ole Ruskies is a flawless example of the problems of government. No problem was solved and the only thing gained was a talking point. I would argue that our government is no different in that aim today. I would argue that government today is solving no problems and only creating talking points. I would further more argue that that same government holds me.. and you to the letter of the law without tolerance or mercy while they do nothing but violate the law. I would argue that every government action needs to be scrutinized and compared to the law of this land. Every law on the books needs to be audited against the constitution and then abolished if found in violation. Every government action in the last fifty years needs to be audited against the constitution and the violators be jailed as mercilessly as we the civilians are. This needs to be done in a current to past order to give them something to fear. Every representative needs to hold office with fear. Fear that will keep them honest and us free.
No, Glass it is no longer a government simply made up of us common people when they do not live by the laws they impose on us.
Posted by glassman on :
Your example about the ole Ruskies is a flawless example of the problems of government.
indeed it is, i didn't bring it in by accident. as you say, if the govt is made up of people, then it is only as good or bad as those people.
I would further more argue that that same government holds me.. and you to the letter of the law without tolerance or mercy while they do nothing but violate the law.
and this we must change
No, Glass it is no longer a government simply made up of us common people when they do not live by the laws they impose on us.
i agree, i just want to make sure we don't cut off our noses to spite our faces.
most of the new laws are written by lobbyists to favor the corporations that hire them.
i don't see "govt" as an evil entity, i see people doing evil things and i see it in both private and govt entities.
the bailouts are a perfect example. people want to claim the govt is evil for bailing them out, but the evil had already been committed, and the govt was left with two choices, allow everything to collapse, or not. blaming the govt is a shell game. the blame goes to the industry.
the industry is comprised of corporate entities WITHOUT personal faces. in other words? people are using corporate articles to commit crimes and they mostly get away with it. that needs to be changed. persoanl accountability in business and govt must be restored.
look at Madoff. his co was also a major market maker, and they claim he never even put his investors money to work? i am sure that something much worse was actually going on.
Posted by Relentless. on :
i don't see "govt" as an evil entity, i see people doing evil things and i see it in both private and govt entities.
I believe you are in the majority.. and that's the problem. Far too many see government as inherently good and noble when its track record throughout history has proven beyond doubt that it is destined for malice... Ours is there already.
And speaking of Madoff... if we persecute him... Why is it that everyone who supports Social Security isn't persecuted in the same manner? See what I mean by government living above the law?
Posted by glassman on :
Far too many see government as inherently good
maybe i'm mis-communicating then, i don't see govt as inherently good just as i don't think cops are my "freinds" just cuz they are cops. i just don't see it as inherently evil either.
the beauty of the system the founding fathers set up was based on balance of powers. of course the balance is never perfect at any given time, it's alwyas in flux.
See what I mean by government living above the law?
we agree on this, and we need to seek ways to fix it, but i don't think we agree on same approach.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:we agree on this, and we need to seek ways to fix it, but i don't think we agree on same approach.
I don't see how it is fixable on a long term basis without the ability to control population growth and life span. Both parts of the only solution suddenly mean freedom is a myth. Ponzi schemes can never be permanent... hence the scheme part.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Government is man made. It consists of the individuals it is made up of. Some good, some bad. If you don't like it then change it.
Posted by Relentless. on :
But BF that's the problem. There is no choice that is not already of the "Ruling Elite". We can vote all we want but if we are never actually given a real candidate to choose from then it is pointless. The ruling elite are not dumb, they know the illusion of choice is the one and only thing that keeps us playing along.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Then be a candidate mate. Anyone can run for some kind of office as long as they are a citizen.
Posted by buckstalker on :
I quit playing along...
I see things exactly as you do RD...
The names change but the results are always the same...has been since I was born...
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)