Isbskins said: Osborn-
If you do not advocate for a "hands off business" model, I have less of an arguement with you. I say:
I am close to hands off business model, but there are certain things that have been built and are now relied upon to a point of dangerousness., even lethality. In these cases, regardless of how the problems end up, they must be dealt with, and in every case of corruption I have mentioned, they could have effected more of the DESIRED result through less regulation, and more common sense.
This corruption that I speak of is far too frequent, far too obtusely sproradic, to even be considered a "coincidence", or accidental steps toward any different plan. The players names and bloodlines, associations and croney networks are "too blatantly obvious to be considered, right?" Yea, right, sure!
Wanna buy a bridge?
The only time I recommend a "hands on approach business model" is when foreign nations seek to unbalance the scale, or playing field through currency manipulation and or dishonest trading practices based on the system they partake in when entering our market in this country. Right now, thanks to Greenspans common sense, we have made it through a lot, despite a system that is soured and dragged down by socialist welfare programs, and educational system focused on funding increases more than results, systems of welfare that reward parents for having more kids they can't pay for, by the head. An ever-growing system of government, that has less and less oversight at all levels. This is truly the onset of the next major empire, in many ways. The only thing that keeps the illusion of liberty going is the 24-hour propaganda channels, extending credit while increasing debt, and a non-stop foreign panic that always seems to appear as soon as it seems government may be less necessary, and due for some fat trimming. When the natives get restless, you incite a panic, circle the wagons, and point the finger away from the problem, wherever it may land..... Vietnam, Somalia, Indonesia, Iraq, Columbia, Iran, North Korea, China.... ANYWHERE but here, because there is nothing going on behind that curtain MR! You just be a patriot, join the service, support the troops and be sure to submit to the nice men in the uniform anytime they may choose to question, stop, search, observe or monitor you..... in the name of "peace & security".... thousand points of light.... New World Order.......
Isbkins said: If you suggest that the average citizen is worse off today in his safety, his disposable income and his ability to pursue happiness than he was before the era of government regulation (ie, before the progressive era), I have a very strong arguement with you. You need not claim perfection to imply that we were MUCH CLOSER to perfection. Lets not nit pick on semantics. Let me place a few facts on the table: I say:
Fine, let us aire these differences and debate them till we are blue and tired of the topic. This should prove beneficial to someone, even if it isn't one of us, though it could be one of us. I am always open to new proof, and never disregard skeptical thought.
Isbskins said: 1) Every institution is subject to corruption. Government, big business, unions, churches, police departments. The fact that there is a history of some level, or even great levels, of corruption in any institution is not an arguement for it's destruction. It is an arguement for finding ways to thwart the corruption. I say:
You neglect the other facts of history though, to be fair, as well as partially assuming a bit much in my opinion. I don't want to destroy government, I want it to live within its PRE-determined rules, that it agreed to SERVE ITS CITIZENS under. I want it to hold itself to the same lights of fact, and the same points of reason it uses in its fights and debates with others. I want it to seek true liberty and justice, as was our stated goals as a nation, through less government, not more. To do this through education, not force, through enlightenment, not programming, through skepticism of power and a constant wary eye on any who wields it, at any time, no matter how seemingly beneficial, or minscule it may seem at the time. I want compassionate politicians who argue until the wee hours of the morning, and most have gone home, as well as an honest dialogue between the people and the legislators. I want to end pork, and PREVENT corruption as much as STOP it, and you don't prevent corruption by growing the bodies that you already have trouble tracking, and holding accountable. I also want my pre-specified ability to petition government, withold my support from them without fear of death or loss of property with no fair trial, and the ability to work legally without having a social security number.
You are trying to uphold the claims that the constitution was violated by lawmakers in all cases "because they had no other option", or what? If so, I would like to address this issue by issue.
Isbskins said: 2) In order to justify a return to a flawed policy, one must demonsrate that the cure was worse than the disease. So, if you want to go back in time, erradicate the income tax, return the country to non-regulated drug, food, and over-all business policy, demonstrate how the average citizen is worse off under the current system than he was under the system you want to return to. Otherwise, your contention that the previous system was "more perfect" does not hold water. I say:
Look, first you have to get past "legal vs. illegal", and then we can debate problems and answers, for which I have many answers for all the problems that were solved by unconstitutional provisions, if not answers, than several VIABLE, REALISTIC, ideas and theories as well as proven historical backings.
What do you value liberty for? Life, indpendence and the ability to be what you wish to be, or do you value the ability to buy cheap commercial, non necessities, while living under a false guise of security that has been proven to be a "FALSE" sense of security, after 9-11. Why do you value justice, and what is justice? To me justice is arriving at the best possible decision based on all available evidence, taking into account all rights and respects to citizens and their property. What is justice with a law book that eats its own tail under the microscope, or is false on its own face? What is word, and honor with hypocrisy, other than a lie that changes with the prevailing wind?
My points are simple. Today, as a citizen, you are less free in every single way, from property ownership, to laws and regulations so numerous NO man can live within the law. Today, depending on what I.D. you have on you, you could be arrested, deported, interrogated, tortured and returned, with no explanation, no questions, no answers, no recognition, no inquiry by a NON-partisan panel, all based on SUSPICION. Today a police dog has more rights than I do, in the case of a police traffic stop, in the sense that if it attacks me for ANY reason, and I fight back, I can be held for ATTEMPTED MURDER of an AGENT of the LAW!!!! They are placing more belief, more trust, more power, in the dog than an average citizen. You are assumed guilty, until you PROVE your innocence, and each day we lose another portion of due process. Today, if I use my CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED RIGHT of protecting myself against a person who seeks to do me harm, even if the criminal was in the wrong, and guilty of illegal trespass, I can be found guilty due to technicality and jailed as a criminal goes free. Today, a President, can suspend or remove any part, portion or the entire Constitution, as did F.D.R. with the New Deal,, and have little if no protest from the people, based on the fact that there are SO MANY accepted laws most can't tell you what is or is not legal if questioned and held to their answers, hell, most can't even name the three branches of government, since they don't matter anymore due to their political castration, corruption, and marginalization.
First we must address the legality that has been crossed, and then we can address the problems in a lawful, sensible way.
Isbskins said: 3) The application of a policy can be flawed without rendering the policy itself inopperative. The simple truth is that dishonest people look for weaknesses in the law, just as hackers look for weaknesses in security systems. If you argue that getting rid of secuity systems is the answer to the problem rather than arguing for bolstering the security system by some new method, you have answered and solved nothing. I say:
That is some analogy, so good I lost the meaning as in how it applied to my beleifs. I believe in empowering the individual, and reducing the government. I believe in strong states rights, as opposed to a strong central government. I believe that no matter what need, what cause, what claim is made, there is no problem that cannot be dealt with in a manner that does
not violate, remove, or void the Constitution.
Perhaps I should ask what you fear so much of this change, which
should have sounded revolutionary back in 1776, but should
now be common knowledge and proud heritage?
I find it funny that so many are quick to call the claim
" athiests/agnostics/secularists are assaulting our christian heritage and culture", yet they take not a second to notice, let alone discuss how we are losing our legal system, our ideals, and our constitutional foundation.