Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I find it more than a bit puzzling that considering that The People, demand certain actions on the part of government, vote into office those who pledge to establish the very laws that the will address those demands are to be considered blameless for the nature and character of the government that they voted for! So to refer to the following sentence as biased propaganda begs the question: Polls suggest that the electorate wants political leaders to cut spending, but then also demand no cuts in any government programme that isn't foreign aid. They want Congress to focus more on creating jobs, but recoil at policies,
is this or is this not a perfectly correct snap shot of the contradictory feelings of most Americans. Vote the scum out of office, just not my scum! |
First and foremost, a representative serves the best interest of the public, but they do this by protecting individual liberties and that which the constitution holds. This is why we have representatives arguing from many factions of people as peoples interests will tend to be that of "self interest" and their job is to insure that of the "best interest", which again I refer to the beginning as I stated. This means, we do not violate those protections regardless of what people claim they desire.
The reason this whole article is absurd is because the basic function of the peoples self interest is something our system is designed to deal with and the very reason we have representatives in the first place.
As for the specifics of polls and trying to claim they mean anything as a position of establishing a representation of the people, well.. they aren't detailed enough, nor representative enough of the people and often reflect the intentions of those making the polls. So I don't really put much value into them to the level your argument attempts to make as it bases more specific assumptions on vague accounting of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Yes quite right, that's why they ratified a Constitution with a strong central government. I swear if I hear another reference to what the founders believed without a shred of evidence to support it...
|
A strong central government limited and directed through the Constitution for the sake of protecting it and the people from its violation be it through foreign or domestic oppression. What are you implying that it is?
If you need evidence as to the purpose and reasoning behind such, Madison and Jefferson do quite well explaining the purpose and limitations of the powers of government with their arguments within the federalist papers. More specifically, the Federalist No. 10 where Madison points out the problems with a pure democracy and that why a Republic is better suited in protecting the people through its bureaucratic design.
Do you have evidence otherwise? Was the the government supposed to be a supreme rule to which disregarded individual liberty for the sake of the "common good" and growing itself ever more in power to be efficient and swift in its implementation? I would sure love to see what documents you provide to support that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Oh, here we go... the Un-Real Americansâ„¢. Well since this debate has been raging for more than 150 years, far older than either Obama or I, I can only say that you are asa clueless about the founders as you are about American history.
|
That is not what I said and it is evident with Obama's own words he believes the constitution and the processes it has are flawed, that it spends more time telling the government what it can't do and not enough that it can do to help people. This is an argument that contradicts the purpose of our individual liberty and the protections of our system. The socialist, Marxist, communistic principals these ideologues hold are incompatible with our form of limited government.
And by the way, please cut the insults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Problems such as what? Financial panics, racial and sexual discrimination, lack of real 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment protections, child labor, massive pollution, rural electrification, contagious disease epidemics, unsafe food and water, which problems to you refer to?
|
problems such as social security, safety net programs of all kinds, encroaching regulations that dictate private markets and become nothing more than power grabs for lobbyist and corrupt officials. Minimum wage laws, communication laws, etc....
You go off about the 4th, 5th, and 6th, but you don't seem to want to deal with the fact that those are all violated by many of the federal programs in existence.
Drop them all, leaving the defense of the nation and the security of each state and individuals protections as it relates to the constitution. The states and individuals there in have authority, the federal government does not, never did, it simply took it upon its own to expand its grab for more power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And all this time I thought the ignorant voter argument cut both ways, is it not the conservative argument that low information voters is the reason for Obama's election in the first place? Must individuals like you change your argument to fit today's talking points? Which is it?
|
Don't confuse self interest with ignorance. Also note I didn't say people were not ignorant, rather they are not as ignorant as that poster tended to believe. Also, knowing that poster and the discussions in other topics, they have a pretty heavy bias to those who do not agree with them being simply "stupid, ignorant".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Well there is certainly an argument to be made on this account. Republicans (at least of recent vintage) Scuttle the regulatory process, appoint the Brownies, and Elizabeth Birnbaums of the world and then scream that government doesn't work. You demand a stimulus bill that is too small and too filled with tax reductions and then turn around and scream that it didn't bring about full employment. Duh! You appoint to the head of mine safety an industry stooge and when 27 miners are killed, you jump and down and scream about the failure of government. No shiite (religiously speaking of course).
|
I think it best first to figure out what my position is before you attribute such to my claims. The poster I responded to has been very clear over the years here as to their position, as I think I have as well, so I would be quite interested if you can take some of my previous positions and then attribute such as you did above.
I argue against those who espouse policies that are contrary to this country and its design. Government should be small and those who are just chomping at the bit to help others are not barred from achieving such in a free society. They have a choice, but those who grow government do not give such choices to the individuals that would object to such policy.
Remember, it is "with liberty and justice for all" and we serve a great injustice to all when we do not respect their liberty. Government and those who appeal to its growth and control, do not respect liberty, but self interest.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
