Taking America Back!

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
LittleButt wrote:
MY TWO CENTS: Here's what I believe:
a.) "Taking America Back" is not code for taking America back from the Federal Government but rather taking it back from the brown population. I think that White America has just awoken to what the Demographics have been screaming for decades: Whites are no longer the dominate race in the United States. The election of a black man to the White House terrified whites. It's about 10% policies and 90% race. Google rappers in the white house, monkey Obama, Balack Obama, etc etc to illustrate my point.
I concur. Having a non-white president is driving a lot of people batshit crazy. The Mosque bullshit, the Obama is a Muslim bullshit, the birthers' bullshit, the focusing on Latin American people as dangerous, privileged people yearning for a "level playing field," ("George Bush was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." Molly Ivans)etc.. is mostly about anxiety that people with brown skin are gradually gaining a place at the table and will continue to do so based on simple demographics.
Dave
BINGO!....we have a winner
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no problem with welfare of people. However, in my opinion, a problem with a welfare program ran at a federal level. Charity and welfare by definition should be given from the heart and the individual for it to capture it's true reason - to care for our neighbors. If you have a faceless entity (the government) then I think we lose some of our human empathy and also our responsibility as a neighbor. (Why help the people who are less fortunate when you are paying someone else to do it?)

The number one argument against my position is that the population is too big for anyone but the government to handle it's problems. I think this is a cop-out. To me this is a blatant disregard of the power of an individual. If it is We The People who give power to the government then how is it that We the People somehow have less power to solve problems than the government?


I personally don't want to be a part of the SS/Medicare programs. I think in a free country with free people such programs should be voluntary. Because the government has made them mandatory-but-not-mandatory (you don't have to have a SSN to work or live in the USA... and if you don't believe me, go read the SSA webpage.) we are forced into some sort of involuntary-servitue or maybe involuntary-thievery.

Are you asking what I would do if I had the power to do so? Would I just end the SS and Medicare? No. People have paid into that program so they should be able to draw off of that. You cannot just leave people out in the cold. However, you can allow people to opt out of the program. If they opt out, they will never be helped when they retire... or if they need disability pay or whatever else falls under the SS payments taken from your paycheck. If you want to continue to have ~25% taken out for the program that is scheduled to be bankrupt in a few decades then that is your prerogative. But otherwise, free people should choose.

I don't understand the confusion of my post though. If it is not listed in the POWERS OF CONGRESS in that list under Article 1, Section 8, explicitly... why are we doing it? You are asking about individual offices/administrations.... if they are doing a job under those enumerated powers, then they can stay. If they are doing something else... then they go.

For example:
Internal Revenue Service - Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises (I know this is in the header, but there are other sections of the Constitution which specifically talk about how to tax)
Interstate Highway System - To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
Federal Aviation Administration - I am not 100% what they do... but this may go under To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; (maybe even postal roads since some post goes through the air now)
Food and Drug Administration - this is a manipulation of the general welfare clause in my opinion. We don't need someone allowing harmful items (i.e. aspartame) and disallowing others. Do you think it falls under one of the enumerated powers?​

Just remember, I don't have all the answers (government is too big to have one person know what everyone is doing)... all I know is that government is too bloated and that much of government is operating outside of the Constitution.

So, you think that the general welfare clause was put in there for shits and giggles?
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Simple.

STEP 1:
The Federal Government should do nothing except what is explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

This means... no more crazy interpretations of the "general welfare" or crazy explicit/implicit uses of the Commerce Clause. If it is not in this list, then they don't do it... Yes, this means health care and all the other stuff that has been added. It is gone.

STEP 2:
Any powers not listed in the Constitution are delegated to the individual states. For example, if Nevada wants to have universal health care, then they can do that. If Illinois wants to tax at 50%, they can do that. If California wants to legalize gay marriage, they can do that.

A rebalance of state power versus federal power.

STEP 3:
Rebalance of power between 3 branches. No legislating from the bench. No sweeping executive orders. No war actions without a declaration of war from Congress. Etc.

STEP 4:
Fiscal responsibility. No more fiat currency. No more bailouts. No more fractional banking. No more Federal Reserve.

STEP 5:
If you don't like the above, then go through the process of amending the Constitution to allow it to happen, which requires ratification through the states (falls in line with state power with step 2).

Actually, that's not what the COnstitution says. It doesn't say COngress cant do anything BUT these things. And by my reading of the Constitution, the Federal Reserve is constitutional: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I for one would LOVE to have a limited government. I don't want a handout or and advantage by law. I don't want my neighbors to get a handout or a advantage by law. I want a level playing field. I want to reap what I put in and I want you to reap what you put in. If someone doesn't put in, then that is not my fault. do what you want to do in your home with your property and I will do the same. Who doesn't agree with this concept?

The problem is that many Democrats rule with their hearts and Republicans rule with the dollar. In other words, we are currently being rulled by corporatism that is eroding the middle class. Is it possible that the middle class is being eroded so that we truly have a rich vs poor (king versus peasants) again? That is for you to decide with the facts at hand.

This quote is unverified and attributed to Lord Tytler... but I think it is most fitting...

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage​

I think the answer to this conundrum is to restore not a democracy... but a Republic and a limited government. It can be done, against what you suspect... but it can and has been done. We went from a tyrannical king of england to the most free nation of the world.

Why can't we do it again?

BTW- its fantastic that we have an intelligent conservative to play with- we usually get the Tea Party types in here
 

BadBoyCanada

1st Like
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
LittleButt wrote:
MY TWO CENTS: Here's what I believe:
a.) "Taking America Back" is not code for taking America back from the Federal Government but rather taking it back from the brown population. I think that White America has just awoken to what the Demographics have been screaming for decades: Whites are no longer the dominate race in the United States. The election of a black man to the White House terrified whites. It's about 10% policies and 90% race. Google rappers in the white house, monkey Obama, Balack Obama, etc etc to illustrate my point.
I concur. Having a non-white president is driving a lot of people batshit crazy. The Mosque bullshit, the Obama is a Muslim bullshit, the birthers' bullshit, the focusing on Latin American people as dangerous, privileged people yearning for a "level playing field," ("George Bush was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." Molly Ivans)etc.. is mostly about anxiety that people with brown skin are gradually gaining a place at the table and will continue to do so based on simple demographics.
Dave

That's true to some extent, but labeling anyone who is anti-Obama as a racist nullifies the rest of your argument to the listener. You've taken a cheap shot that implies those that are more conservative don't have intelligent opinions.

But as an outsider looking in, I see a lot of huge changes in a very short time. It's not surprising that there is a backlash against universal health care. In Canada, its older than me, but the debate still goes on regarding its merits and weaknesses.

Financial regulation is a good idea. It just came through so fast that you know no one read it all and the pros/cons were never debated, just on a we/they mentality.

President Obama is extremely left leaning, as is Nancy Pelosi. They would like radical change (and I'm not implying that is good or bad). As I'm all sure we agree, most people do not like a little change. A lot of change scares the crap out of them.

So back to the original question, I believe taking America Back means the status quo to most, not take it back from "brown people".
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That's true to some extent, but labeling anyone who is anti-Obama as a racist nullifies the rest of your argument to the listener. You've taken a cheap shot that implies those that are more conservative don't have intelligent opinions.

But as an outsider looking in, I see a lot of huge changes in a very short time. It's not surprising that there is a backlash against universal health care. In Canada, its older than me, but the debate still goes on regarding its merits and weaknesses.

Financial regulation is a good idea. It just came through so fast that you know no one read it all and the pros/cons were never debated, just on a we/they mentality.

President Obama is extremely left leaning, as is Nancy Pelosi. They would like radical change (and I'm not implying that is good or bad). As I'm all sure we agree, most people do not like a little change. A lot of change scares the crap out of them.

So back to the original question, I believe taking America Back means the status quo to most, not take it back from "brown people".

Obama is NOT "extremely left leaning" :rolleyes:
 

BadBoyCanada

1st Like
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
b.)America is on a steady decline. Unlike what Glen Beck and Rush scream (and cry) about it takes decades for a society to weaken enough to collapse. For one man (Obama) to be able to do it in 4 years is impossible. I believe we are on a slow and steady decline to British Empire level and have been since the collapse of the auto industry in the late 1970s where the main export of the United States were our jobs. I see perhaps a military defeat (China) within 20 years, followed by an utter loss of confidence in the dollar and an economic collapse shortly afterwards. I see China becoming the U.S. Perhaps then the States will get their chance to go rogue?

Interesting thought. I too see China taking a chance on seizing Tawain once and for all. Logistically, they "should" do it soon while the Americans are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. With this President, I see less of a resistance than a Republican one.

But in the end, China has the USA so tied up financially, why waste the effort when the could have a bloodless war (so to speak) that attacks financially, with much better results.
 

BadBoyCanada

1st Like
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama is NOT "extremely left leaning" :rolleyes:

That didn't take long :biggrin1:. It came up before my last reply.

Our Canadian joke is the most left democrat is right of most Canadian politicians.

I'm not talking about stalinism/socialism/communism.

He has spoken of using taxation to shift the wealth.

He has spoken of Gay Rights.

Immigration reform to lead illegals here towards a path of citizenship.

These are fairly left leaning ideals compared to where you came from. You can't call them centrist by shifting where the center is. :rolleyes:

The evolving ideals in the USA, form my perspective, seem to be shifting to the left. I'm not debating the issues, just the reality.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
That didn't take long :biggrin1:. It came up before my last reply.

Our Canadian joke is the most left democrat is right of most Canadian politicians.

I'm not talking about stalinism/socialism/communism.

He has spoken of using taxation to shift the wealth.

He has spoken of Gay Rights.

Immigration reform to lead illegals here towards a path of citizenship.

These are fairly left leaning ideals compared to where you came from. You can't call them centrist by shifting where the center is. :rolleyes:

The evolving ideals in the USA, form my perspective, seem to be shifting to the left. I'm not debating the issues, just the reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think TomCat is referring more to Obama's actions in office and not just by what he says. If you want to see someone who really leans left, check out Alan Grayson or Howard Dean. Speaking "left" is one thing, but it has no footing if the actions taken don't equate to it.
 

BadBoyCanada

1st Like
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think TomCat is referring more to Obama's actions in office and not just by what he says. If you want to see someone who really leans left, check out Alan Grayson or Howard Dean. Speaking "left" is one thing, but it has no footing if the actions taken don't equate to it.

100% agreed. But the illusion can mean more than the results. By that, I mean how his detractors portray him
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That didn't take long :biggrin1:. It came up before my last reply.

Our Canadian joke is the most left democrat is right of most Canadian politicians.

I'm not talking about stalinism/socialism/communism.

He has spoken of using taxation to shift the wealth.

He has spoken of Gay Rights.

Immigration reform to lead illegals here towards a path of citizenship.

These are fairly left leaning ideals compared to where you came from. You can't call them centrist by shifting where the center is. :rolleyes:

The evolving ideals in the USA, form my perspective, seem to be shifting to the left. I'm not debating the issues, just the reality.

Oh stop it. Obama is a corporatist centrist- he's not some left leaning ideologue. Sure, he "talks" of all those things, but how has he governed? As a centrist. You want to see a REAL liberal? Talk to Bernie Sanders of Vermont, or Barbara Boxer. Alan Grayson. Gavin Newsom.
 

BadBoyCanada

1st Like
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
41
Location
East Coast
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
:rolleyes: Really? The Republicans will try and smear ANY Democrat as a "liberal", even if it was Ben Nelson.

As will any Democrat smear a Republican as a tool of Faux News.

My biggest concern is that no one listens to anyone anymore. Doesn't matter what country, there is no such thing as a debate of ideas. Just thre manipulation of the masses.

I'll go cry in my corner now.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
As will any Democrat smear a Republican as a tool of Faux News.

True to some extent, although I must say that one side is guiltier of this than the other. On top of this, many of the journalists I've been seeing as of late with "liberal mindsets" have no problem making issues about the actual individuals who bring forth the drama and not just make it the fault of a phony news organization.

My biggest concern is that no one listens to anyone anymore. Doesn't matter what country, there is no such thing as a debate of ideas. Just thre manipulation of the masses.

I don't think it's that bad. This is the internet age, and never before do we have such access to information regarding our politicians. It's pretty easy to hold anyone accountable for their actions and for the things that they say in public. When John McCain claimed that he never said he was a maverick, all it takes is a simple search on the net and you can find out that it was a blatant lie. When some of our conservative politicians claim that the stimulus is a disaster and doesn't work, a quick search on the internet can show the hypocrisy of that statement as at least 114 of them freely took money from the very program they said was a failure and then tried to take credit for it by posing for photo ops with big game-show sized checks as props. Even Koch Industries, the corporation that has provided massive amounts of their own money to derail a lot of the current legislative proposals, was exposed to be secretly applying for money from the very programs they claim to be publicly against. Those are just few of the many examples. But even with the access to this knowledge, some people are so moved by their beliefs that none of the blatant hypocrisies and lies matter to them anymore. They just don't want a "liberal" in office for whatever paranoidal ideology they fester and they're very loud in expressing that fact. They don't want information... they want some kind of confirmation that they're not crazy. Unfortunately, some of our Conservatives have no problem giving them the validation they seek, regardless as to how hateful and disgusting their sentiments may be, because they know that will equal an extra vote in November.
 
Last edited:

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As will any Democrat smear a Republican as a tool of Faux News.

My biggest concern is that no one listens to anyone anymore. Doesn't matter what country, there is no such thing as a debate of ideas. Just thre manipulation of the masses.

I'll go cry in my corner now.

Not true. I've never heard that assertion about all Republicans. Stop the equivocating. The Democrats dont smear- they lay down like fucking dogs and take it up the ass. There's a difference.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Not true. I've never heard that assertion about all Republicans. Stop the equivocating. The Democrats dont smear- they lay down like fucking dogs and take it up the ass. There's a difference.

Yep. Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall apart.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Same verbiage for?

You obviously didn't click the link. Here's one from the the first link (note: article first published in 2006):

Gov. Jim Douglas’ recent foray into congressional politics is a thinly veiled — or perhaps a poorly disguised — attempt to reinvigorate the divisive “Take Back Vermont” mentality of 2000.
“Take Back Vermont” was the mantra of the anti-civil unions contingent and others who wanted to return the state to its more Republican roots, as opposed to the supposed Socialist mecca it had become thanks to the foreign imported values of flatlanders — those anathema to privacy- and property-rights loving “real” Vermonters.
"Take Back Vermont" = "Take Back America": same ideas, same outrage, same slogan. And please note that, at least in VT, it had no racial connotations, only homophobic ones (Oh! Excuse me! "Traditionalist" ones :wink:).

Christopher Hitchens is, as always, on perfect pitch here.
 

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Actually, that's not what the COnstitution says. It doesn't say COngress cant do anything BUT these things. And by my reading of the Constitution, the Federal Reserve is constitutional: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
The Federal Reserve isn't a government entity though. Government entities have checks placed on them and the Federal Reserve does not. We would have done an audit on it a long time ago... like many other government organizations. But we have not.

HR1207 is being refused to be voted on even though it has 300+ co-sponsors (75% of representatives)

Alan Greenspan admits that it is not within government control.



To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;​
The US Mint coins money. They set the materials, the impression, and the denomination. Value of the coin is set by weights and measures - an ounce is an ounce.

The Federal Reserve issues credit (where in the Constitution is credit allowed) and manipulates interest rates (we just discussed how the Mint and Weights and Measures sets the value). Even in Article 1, Section 10, gold and silver are specifically mentioned. So how does the Federal Reserve git in again?