Taking America Back!

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
You obviously didn't click the link. Here's one from the the first link (note: article first published in 2006):

"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.
I did click the link and I did read it. I just don't care to stereotype an entire group just because of a name they have chosen.

It looks like you have.

Are you one of those people that would accuse me of being racist because I didn't vote for Obama?
 

D_Evita_Zane

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Posts
263
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Maybe it's the "liberal university brainwashing" that I've been exposed to being a college student, but I don't feel like my rights/liberties are in peril now vs under Bush, nor do I think that Obama is Mao or Kim Jung Il and is gonna turn us Commie.

The far right (IMO) has done more to inhibit the rights of Americans (ie gays, and Muslims), than the radical extremist liberal communist dictator Obama has...
 

B_bxmuscle

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
53
Location
NYC
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I applaud your effort to get a clear and rational answer to your question MLB, but a quick read of the post makes it clear that you are wasting your time trying to have a reasoned conversation with the people you are addressing.

I think you already know that their incendiary language is not about demonstrable issues; it fundamentally about backlash against the growing visibility and influence of excluded groups by those who pine for the good ol' days of unalloyed racism, sexism, (white) male supremacy, homophobia, et al. Go back and carefully look at the America of the early 1960s as depicted in that great show Mad Men. All the "Negros" are waiters, servants and elevator operators. All the gays are deeply closeted and women who didn't attend Radcliffe or Vassar are invisible to those like Betty Draper who did. Affluent Jews are treated with condescension but privileged WASPs, women are expected to defer to men and usually do, and the people that run things are white guys who consider it entirely natural that that is how it should be. "Taking Back America" is about taking it back to those times.
 
Last edited:

B_bxmuscle

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Posts
273
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
53
Location
NYC
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Also not that the issues raised by the "Take Back America" crowd almost always have to do with protesting developments that help empower those with less power.

"Judicial Activism" is about court decisions that struck down segregation (Brown v. Little Rock BOE) or expanded civil liberties (Miranda).

Opposition to even the existence to the Fed is about restrictions put on the power of plutocracy.

There are many reasonable and rational arguments in favor of smaller, less activist government. However, I suggest that the more shrill denunciations of the federal government as a potential dictatorship requiring the arming citizens have more to do with the fact that said government is no longer the same club of privilege for the powerful it once was. Example: a colleague of mine was in D.C. last week during the Glenn Beck rally, was appalled to see what she called legions of white, middle-aged mid-western and southern Republicans showing up at the Holocaust Museum on the Mall wearing t-shirts depicting Obama as Hitler. Again, there are plenty of good rational and reasonable arguments against this President's policies that can be debated. Representing him as Hitler is not about that; it's about the notion that someone like him has no legitimate right to be President of the United States. These are the people you are trying to address rationally and you are wasting your breath.
 

D_Martin van Burden

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
3,229
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
258
Agreed and very well stated, bx. The thing is, taking back one's country is more of a culturally reactive cry. When asked how this slogan translates into different public policies, the message couldn't be any more distorted or inchoate. Responses run the gamut from dismantling the Federal Reserve to overthrowing Obama and everywhere in between. When pressed for specifics, constitutional revision comes up but not with any depth or seriousness, let alone planning. And beyond that, when confronted with more acute data on corporate mergers, profit margins, and broad indicators of inequality, the response borders on complacency. Deciphering differences regarding Obama's religion, race, or culture is the default response; nothing substantive.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Simple.

STEP 1:
The Federal Government should do nothing except what is explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8: . . . .
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.
Would you then eliminate the Social Security and Medicare programs since they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8 ? Would they fall within your rubric of "crazy interpretations of the general welfare"?
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.
I didn't ask you what you want or whether you would "personally" participate, nor did I ask you to editorialize on the programs. That's what's known as deflection. I asked you if you would eliminate them based on your core premise that they are unconstitutional and therefore the Federal Government is not authorized to administrate them. I even quoted your opening sentence in my post. Here it is again:
The Federal Government should do nothing except what is explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8:
Again, I repeat:
Would you then eliminate the Social Security and Medicare programs since they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8 ? Would they fall within your rubric of "crazy interpretations of the general welfare"?
Are you asking what I would do if I had the power to do so?
No . . . :rolleyes2: See above.

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.
Bbbut . . . these programs are unconstitutional according to you, and so we have to get rid of them, right?

Or do you think the Federal government should continue these programs, even though you said, "The Federal Government should do nothing except what is explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8:"?

Why do you continue to focus on problems with Social Security? How does that bear on its constitutionality?

Shit, now I'm really confused. :confused:

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?....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.
Oh, okay, so we're back to that again. :confused13: Let's move on . . .

How about the Internal Revenue Service, Interstate Highway System, Federal Aviation Administration, Food and Drug Administration, etc.?

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?
So. . . let me see if I'm getting this . . . we can keep SS and MC, even though they're unconstitutional, just as any Healthcare reform system would be, correct? And we can keep the Interstate highway system, because it's covered under "Post Offices and Post Roads" provisions, correct?

Now as far as the FAA, you're "not sure what they do", but you think they might fall under rules and regulations governing "land and naval Forces" (military). Here's a hint, the Federal Aviation Administration essentially oversees and regulates the airspace over the country (including outer space interestingly enough) which means they are responsible for all the traffic in the air, specifically not at sea or on land, both military and civilian air traffic. I dunno, but you might do just as well trying to justify their continued existence by squeezing them in under your "post offices and post roads" provision since, as you say, people send "airmail". :rolleyes: Although, wouldn't the FAA only be able to regulate planes that were carrying mail? Wow, it's a slippery slope, ain't it? Anyhoo, that would seem to make about as much sense, but honestly, it's quite a stretch either way.

Of course, the original writers of the Constitution could not have forseen something as unimaginable as air travel, much less space travel, so they could hardly have been expected to provide for everchanging circumstances and every unforseen eventuality in an increasingly complex world, now could they?

Hmmmmm . . . . :scratchchin:

As far as the Food and Drug Administration being a "manipulation of the general welfare clause", why are you asking me if it falls under one of the enumerated powers? That was my question to you - does it, and if not, should it be eliminated, as you said along with all the rest of this "bloated government"?

Anyway, I think I finally understand your solution now. -- Programs can remain as long as you think they're important and you can justify their existence through some contorted liberal personal interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how far you have to stretch to cover them. However, if they're programs you don't like or think are unnecessary we should apply a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and they should summarily be eliminated. Unless of course that would cause such disruption to society that we dare not eliminate them, as is the case with Social Security. In that case, I guess we'd have to pass a Constitutional amendment to keep them going though, right? Have I got you figured out now?

Just remember, I don't have all the answers
Now there's a big ol understatement. Nor apparently do you have any answers that are remotely feasible or make any practical sense. I'll tell you what the answer is not -- applying an absurd and manipulative interpretation to the Constitution trying to make it match your ideology.

(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.

:rolleyes2: *wonders where the poster stands on the bloated defense department budget, but really doesn't want an answer*
 
Last edited:

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
LOL @ maxcok.

Under the Constitution everyone is to be treated equally (via mandates, regulations and laws), right?

If your answer is "yes" then please tell me how a voluntary program, as I described with SS/Medicare, would be in contradiction with what I have said?
 
Last edited:

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Anyway, I think I finally understand your solution now. -- Programs can remain as long as you think they're important and you can justify their existence through some contorted liberal personal interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how far you have to stretch to cover them. However, if they're programs you don't like or think are unnecessary we should apply a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and they should summarily be eliminated. Unless of course that would cause such disruption to society that we dare not eliminate them, as is the case with Social Security. In that case, I guess we'd have to pass a Constitutional amendment to keep them going though, right? Have I got you figured out now?
Far from. you are putting words into my mouth as a true Liberal does. But hey, you are just reminding me how I cannot come to LPSG and have a rational debate.

:rolleyes2: *wonders where the poster stands on the bloated defense department budget, but really doesn't want an answer*
Baiting a Red Herring and Poisoning the Well. I don't play that game.
 
Last edited:

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
Under the Constitution everyone is to be treated equally (via mandates, regulations and laws), right?

Too bad that everyone isn't treated equally in this country.
Women are paid less than men in most careers.
Gay & lesbian people can't marry.
I could go on... but I think my point is clear.

But "equality" sounds so much better on paper, especially on an old one with historical value.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Far from. you are putting words into my mouth as a true Liberal does.
:rolleyes: Talk about generalizing and applying stereotypes:
This is exactly that bullshit that I am talking about. Already starting the stereotyping name calling.
LOL. Ironic, ain't it?

Secondly, I haven't put any words in your mouth. On the contrary, I have liberally :wink: employed the quote function to reflect your own words back to you verbatim and carried them to their logical (or illogical in your case) conclusion. As for being a "true liberal", you don't know me at all, bud. You might wanna ask some of my progressive friends around this forum if I've really earned that moniker.

But hey, you are just reminding me how I cannot come to LPSG and have a rational debate.
So disagreeing with you and pointing out the hypocrisy and illogic in your irrational argument is not rational? Grow up, baby. Next you'll say that challenging your position is a violation of your free speech. :rolleyes:

It's becoming clear now why you find the forum so intolerable. You're not the only one here who views any challenge to his position as uncivil, though peculiarly they always seem to be on your side of the political divide.

Baiting a Red Herring and Poisoning the Well. I don't play that game.
Really? How is it a "red herring" to ask if you think the defense budget fits into your definition of "bloated government"? Not to mention I said I really didn't want an answer. Is that any more a "red herring" or "poisoning the well" than your very long digression into the problems with Social Security, and referring to it as "involuntary-servitue [sic] or maybe involuntary-thievery"? Ironically, you are the one playing the games here, chum. Seriously, grow up.

LOL @ maxcok.

Under the Constitution everyone is to be treated equally (via mandates, regulations and laws), right?

If your answer is "yes" then please tell me how a voluntary program, as I described with SS/Medicare, would be in contradiction with what I have said?
More games, silly Billy. I have no idea what you're talking about, and it has absolutely no relation to your stated criterion that everything the government does must explicitly be specified under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I'm not here to discuss whether Social Security is insolvent, should be mandatory, anything else about how the program is administered, equal treatment under the law, or any other thing tangential to the subject. So rather than me following you off on your deflection, how about you answer the question I put to you in my first post, which from then until now has remained the same and very simple. You say that we need to eliminate everything from the Federal government that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution:
The Federal Government should do nothing except what is explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8:
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.
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.
So I would still like to know, on the strict test of constitutionality YOU have proposed:
Would you then eliminate the Social Security and Medicare programs since they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8 ? Would they fall within your rubric of "crazy interpretations of the general welfare"? How about the Internal Revenue Service, Interstate Highway System, Federal Aviation Administration, Food and Drug Administration, etc.?
You have not come anywhere close to answering that. Instead you have equivocated and tried to rationalize constitutional basis for programs you recognize as necessary, while employing a separate standard for programs you want to eliminate. If and when you have answered that question substantively and without equivocation, only then will I consider engaging you further. Otherwise, I will conclude you cannot logically defend your proposal. I will further conclude that you would use the constitutional argument as a tool to eliminate those programs of the Federal government you oppose, but will not apply the same standard to programs you think are necessary or useful.
 
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
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?

1) The Federal Reserve could be abolished through congressional legislation and/or constitutional amendment
2) if that bill is not being voted on- there is a procedural device the COngress can use to force it to the floor for a vote. i think it only takes 2/3 of congressmen to sign a resolution
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
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
I don't disagree with that basic premise, and racism certainly looms large. But I don't think it's 90%, and to see it only through that lens is too simplistic. I think it has just as much to do with taking America "back to Jesus" and back to "simpler times" and "traditional values". It's a nostalgic simplistic vision of the past, brought on by present difficulties and anxieties, coupled with fear of the future, fear of the unknown and fear of "the other". And yeah, it's mostly a white middle class, working class thang, though there are certainly enough well-heeled folk who find that message convenient enough to "capitalize" on. My 2ct.

 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
It's a nostalgic simplistic vision of the past, brought on by present difficulties and anxieties, coupled with fear of the future, fear of the unknown and fear of "the other". And yeah, it's mostly a white middle class, working class thang, though there are certainly enough well-heeled folk who find that message convenient enough to "capitalize" on. My 2ct.


Ohh I hear a song coming on, hold on, I do......



[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica]Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] And you know who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica] I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.[/FONT]
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Ohh I hear a song coming on, hold on, I do......
You mean this?


[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica]Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.[/FONT]
[FONT=century gothic, arial, helvetica]I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.[/FONT]​

Funny thing. I was thinking about old Kate when I wrote that post.
 
Last edited:

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Too bad that everyone isn't treated equally in this country.
Women are paid less than men in most careers.
Gay & lesbian people can't marry.
I could go on... but I think my point is clear.

But "equality" sounds so much better on paper, especially on an old one with historical value.
There is no law that says that everyone must be paid equally. There is a law that says that everyone must be paid minimum wage. If women are getting paid less than a man, then that is a problem government cannot fix without discriminating against someone else. Remember affirmative rights?

Homosexuals can't marry. OK. And this goes along with my original post. If it is not in the Constitution, then they cannot do it. There is no power in the Constitution that grants the power to say who you can or cannot be with. Everyone always argues that homosexuals should be given the right to marry. But, why does the government have the right in the first place to tell us who we can be make a [love] contract/covenant with? They don't have it. I've advocated for some time now that gays need to quit asking for permission to marry and start asking where the government has the right to allow/disallow marriage - homosexual or heterosexual.
 

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
1) The Federal Reserve could be abolished through congressional legislation and/or constitutional amendment
2) if that bill is not being voted on- there is a procedural device the COngress can use to force it to the floor for a vote. i think it only takes 2/3 of congressmen to sign a resolution
Are you sure that Congress can abolish a private enterprise?

As I said before, even Greenspan has admitted that the Federal Reserve is, essentially, above the law.
 

D_Chocho_Lippz

Account Disabled
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Posts
1,587
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Uh, I was complimenting you
You have no idea who I am or what my beliefs are. You can infer, but you don't know.

By saying "intelligent conservative" you are stereotyping. Are all Conservatives unintelligent?

If you wanted to compliment me, then you could have just said thanks for bringing a different voice into the forum. But instead you had to imply something else of your adversaries.

Does this make sense? As I already said, I used to frequent the political forum a lot here but then I quit. I quit because any conversation I walked into it was full of accusations and stereotypes before they even read what I wrote. I can feel it again, right on this forum. MLB asked a question... I answered, clarified... and then all of a sudden I'm under attack and all my words are being twisted.
I wonder if our resident conservative would object to a Constitutional amendment specifically authorizing all these programs.....
If you are referring to me as the "resident conservative" I already answered this. Please re-read post 2, step 5.
 
Last edited: