Fascism is still with us

[Guest]

The current thread, "The Democrat (liberal) has a problem" initiated by Cashman, is the best recent example of what is wrong with the TOTV political forum. It is a another collection of very extreme, vast generalizations which don't deserve careful refutation, but do serve one important negative purpose. They encourage a small group of conservatives to again engage in personal attacks on anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. "Twisted", "crazy", suffering from "mental disorder", "from another planet", "nuts", "opposed to everything this country stands for" are some of the words this group uses to describe other people. I could wait a little longer for the other like minded folks, (bkcunningham excepted), to weigh in on Cashman's comments, but I'll respond now and hope for the best.

This attack response to "liberals" on TOTV is so commonplace that it is almost completely accepted. The Talk Hosts made the political thread 'by membership only' because of the nasty personal attacks - not monopolized by conservatives I might add. And of course, all of this is ok because we live where our freedom of speech is cherished.

Freedom of speech does not make this right. Name calling and personal attacks have always been the favorite tactic of fascists, intimidating some and wearing others down. Those who remain are attacked more directly and viciously. It's not about who or what is right, but who hollers, schemes and demands who gets the prize; power. At present, conservatives are not in power, so some will resort to anything which will restore their representatives to power. It isn't about the facts, or what might be beneficial now or in the future. Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - EVERYTHING is simply declared wrong, wrong, wrong!

What is right is in between the extremes, and often not fully known even with the best available intelligence. Refraining from total obstructionism and all-out attacks on others makes it possible to find better answers through pooled ideas and resources. Just a little example - what could we have done with the money and staff resources devoted to trying to stop all of the above listed things!

TV is a most amazing place. A treasure trove of minds with time to reflect and the experience to make sense of what is happening, and maybe even help build a better future. We should be well past advocating total extremism and there should be no need for name-calling, and personal attacks.

[Guest]

My first reaction was not to respond to your condescending diatribe.

But what the heck, us fascists like a good rant with our cognac and cigar before we retire to our chambers.

Please expand on Mr.Cashman's post and tell us knuckle-dragging, hairy- backed goons, precisely what liberals find offensive?

Do you seriously want the USA to veer towards a socialist government that has been a failure every time it was in existence?

Please tell us what you want and how we will get there. Do you really think that central government control will create jobs and make the USA great again? Do you think that the destruction of the private sector will make us prosperous?

Instead of name calling and throwing out insults, please tell us what will put the millions of people back to work.
At the rate that were going into debt, the total collapse of our country could be on the table.

Is that what the left really wants? I think it does.

[Guest]

The current thread, "The Democrat (liberal) has a problem" initiated by Cashman, is the best recent example of what is wrong with the TOTV political forum. It is a another collection of very extreme, vast generalizations which don't deserve careful refutation, but do serve one important negative purpose. They encourage a small group of conservatives to again engage in personal attacks on anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. "Twisted", "crazy", suffering from "mental disorder", "from another planet", "nuts", "opposed to everything this country stands for" are some of the words this group uses to describe other people. I could wait a little longer for the other like minded folks, (bkcunningham excepted), to weigh in on Cashman's comments, but I'll respond now and hope for the best.

This attack response to "liberals" on TOTV is so commonplace that it is almost completely accepted. The Talk Hosts made the political thread 'by membership only' because of the nasty personal attacks - not monopolized by conservatives I might add. And of course, all of this is ok because we live where our freedom of speech is cherished.

Freedom of speech does not make this right. Name calling and personal attacks have always been the favorite tactic of fascists, intimidating some and wearing others down. Those who remain are attacked more directly and viciously. It's not about who or what is right, but who hollers, schemes and demands who gets the prize; power. At present, conservatives are not in power, so some will resort to anything which will restore their representatives to power. It isn't about the facts, or what might be beneficial now or in the future. Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - EVERYTHING is simply declared wrong, wrong, wrong!

What is right is in between the extremes, and often not fully known even with the best available intelligence. Refraining from total obstructionism and all-out attacks on others makes it possible to find better answers through pooled ideas and resources. Just a little example - what could we have done with the money and staff resources devoted to trying to stop all of the above listed things!

TV is a most amazing place. A treasure trove of minds with time to reflect and the experience to make sense of what is happening, and maybe even help build a better future. We should be well past advocating total extremism and there should be no need for name-calling, and personal attacks.

This is a joke right? You gotta be kidding.... Did you forget already what liberals said and did to Sarah Palin?

[Guest]

First of all is the fact that you don't know what the word FASCIST mean. When you throw a word around you should have at least a basic understanding of the English Language.

FASCISM is the placing of the government over the individual in an autocratic setting.

This is sounding more like the current regime you like to defend. Obama and his people and you who want to crush opposition are the fascists; by definition.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

[Guest]

JimJoe, I ws thinking the same thing, as I read the post, not to mention Bush, also.

[Guest]

The current thread, "The Democrat (liberal) has a problem" initiated by Cashman, is the best recent example of what is wrong with the TOTV political forum. It is a another collection of very extreme, vast generalizations which don't deserve careful refutation, but do serve one important negative purpose. They encourage a small group of conservatives to again engage in personal attacks on anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. "Twisted", "crazy", suffering from "mental disorder", "from another planet", "nuts", "opposed to everything this country stands for" are some of the words this group uses to describe other people. I could wait a little longer for the other like minded folks, (bkcunningham excepted), to weigh in on Cashman's comments, but I'll respond now and hope for the best.

This attack response to "liberals" on TOTV is so commonplace that it is almost completely accepted. The Talk Hosts made the political thread 'by membership only' because of the nasty personal attacks - not monopolized by conservatives I might add. And of course, all of this is ok because we live where our freedom of speech is cherished.

Freedom of speech does not make this right. Name calling and personal attacks have always been the favorite tactic of fascists, intimidating some and wearing others down. Those who remain are attacked more directly and viciously. It's not about who or what is right, but who hollers, schemes and demands who gets the prize; power. At present, conservatives are not in power, so some will resort to anything which will restore their representatives to power. It isn't about the facts, or what might be beneficial now or in the future. Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - EVERYTHING is simply declared wrong, wrong, wrong!

What is right is in between the extremes, and often not fully known even with the best available intelligence. Refraining from total obstructionism and all-out attacks on others makes it possible to find better answers through pooled ideas and resources. Just a little example - what could we have done with the money and staff resources devoted to trying to stop all of the above listed things!

TV is a most amazing place. A treasure trove of minds with time to reflect and the experience to make sense of what is happening, and maybe even help build a better future. We should be well past advocating total extremism and there should be no need for name-calling, and personal attacks.

ijusluvit, since you are subscribed to the political forum, you know as well as I, the name calling and mudslinging goes both ways. I have tried countless times, and I must say I have been sucessful on a few attempts with cologal and a very few other more liberal leaning thinkers to have an intelligent conversation.

But with that said, my problem isn't so much just the concept behind the programs you listed: Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - my problem, very basically, is handing over that much power to the federal government. Our country wasn't setup this way.

It just seems when I try to question any of these programs, laws or issues on the grounds of individual and states freedoms and/or liberties, I get no response or called names.

[Guest]

The current thread, "The Democrat (liberal) has a problem" initiated by Cashman, is the best recent example of what is wrong with the TOTV political forum. It is a another collection of very extreme, vast generalizations which don't deserve careful refutation, but do serve one important negative purpose. They encourage a small group of conservatives to again engage in personal attacks on anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. "Twisted", "crazy", suffering from "mental disorder", "from another planet", "nuts", "opposed to everything this country stands for" are some of the words this group uses to describe other people. I could wait a little longer for the other like minded folks, (bkcunningham excepted), to weigh in on Cashman's comments, but I'll respond now and hope for the best.

This attack response to "liberals" on TOTV is so commonplace that it is almost completely accepted. The Talk Hosts made the political thread 'by membership only' because of the nasty personal attacks - not monopolized by conservatives I might add. And of course, all of this is ok because we live where our freedom of speech is cherished.

Freedom of speech does not make this right. Name calling and personal attacks have always been the favorite tactic of fascists, intimidating some and wearing others down. Those who remain are attacked more directly and viciously. It's not about who or what is right, but who hollers, schemes and demands who gets the prize; power. At present, conservatives are not in power, so some will resort to anything which will restore their representatives to power. It isn't about the facts, or what might be beneficial now or in the future. Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - EVERYTHING is simply declared wrong, wrong, wrong!

What is right is in between the extremes, and often not fully known even with the best available intelligence. Refraining from total obstructionism and all-out attacks on others makes it possible to find better answers through pooled ideas and resources. Just a little example - what could we have done with the money and staff resources devoted to trying to stop all of the above listed things!

TV is a most amazing place. A treasure trove of minds with time to reflect and the experience to make sense of what is happening, and maybe even help build a better future. We should be well past advocating total extremism and there should be no need for name-calling, and personal attacks.

I see you wrote this late last night. Do me a favor and instead of attacking me while you accuse me of being an attacker read my post and your post over again this morning. Maybe you will then consider discussing the issues I raised.

[Guest]

The current thread, "The Democrat (liberal) has a problem" initiated by Cashman, is the best recent example of what is wrong with the TOTV political forum. It is a another collection of very extreme, vast generalizations which don't deserve careful refutation, but do serve one important negative purpose. They encourage a small group of conservatives to again engage in personal attacks on anyone who does not share their exact beliefs. "Twisted", "crazy", suffering from "mental disorder", "from another planet", "nuts", "opposed to everything this country stands for" are some of the words this group uses to describe other people. I could wait a little longer for the other like minded folks, (bkcunningham excepted), to weigh in on Cashman's comments, but I'll respond now and hope for the best.

This attack response to "liberals" on TOTV is so commonplace that it is almost completely accepted. The Talk Hosts made the political thread 'by membership only' because of the nasty personal attacks - not monopolized by conservatives I might add. And of course, all of this is ok because we live where our freedom of speech is cherished.

Freedom of speech does not make this right. Name calling and personal attacks have always been the favorite tactic of fascists, intimidating some and wearing others down. Those who remain are attacked more directly and viciously. It's not about who or what is right, but who hollers, schemes and demands who gets the prize; power. At present, conservatives are not in power, so some will resort to anything which will restore their representatives to power. It isn't about the facts, or what might be beneficial now or in the future. Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - EVERYTHING is simply declared wrong, wrong, wrong!

What is right is in between the extremes, and often not fully known even with the best available intelligence. Refraining from total obstructionism and all-out attacks on others makes it possible to find better answers through pooled ideas and resources. Just a little example - what could we have done with the money and staff resources devoted to trying to stop all of the above listed things!

TV is a most amazing place. A treasure trove of minds with time to reflect and the experience to make sense of what is happening, and maybe even help build a better future. We should be well past advocating total extremism and there should be no need for name-calling, and personal attacks.

I just thought of something. By attacking me you put me in the category of Sarah Palin. She raised issues. The Liberals could not refute the issues so they attacked her personally.

I raised specific issues. You lied and said they were generalizations and then you attacked me personally.

Why do Liberals attack messengers and not messages?

Think about that ijusluvit.

[Guest]

ijusluvit, since you are subscribed to the political forum, you know as well as I, the name calling and mudslinging goes both ways. I have tried countless times, and I must say I have been sucessful on a few attempts with cologal and a very few other more liberal leaning thinkers to have an intelligent conversation.

But with that said, my problem isn't so much just the concept behind the programs you listed: Stimulus programs, functioning auto companies, health care reform, consumer credit reform, Supreme Court nominees, the DISCLOSE Act, banking and finance regulations, a 20 billion dollar insurance policy from BP - my problem, very basically, is handing over that much power to the federal government. Our country wasn't setup this way.

It just seems when I try to question any of these programs, laws or issues on the grounds of individual and states freedoms and/or liberties, I get no response or called names.

I clearly stated that the personal attacks were not the monopoly of TOTV conservatives, but that conservatives more frequently engage in it at present because they are frustrated by, and so vehemently disagree with the current administration. As I have done repeatedly in the past, I again advocated an end to this unproductive behavior.
I also stay in this forum to try to participate in intelligent discussion, so I'll go right to what you describe as your problem "handing over that much power to the federal government." That's really at the core of disagreement between conservatives and liberals, so lets talk about it. In the short term, a mere 18 months, the current administration and Congress has taken a number of steps, none of which is appears to be unconstitutional. If any of those actions are unconstitutional they will be addressed in the future by the courts according to our pretty good formula for the separation and balance of powers. If any of those actions proves so unpopular with the electorate, they will be repealed in the future. IMHO I do not believe that any of the recent laws passed or actions taken will be overturned in the future.
More importantly, I suggest that Thomas Jefferson and others who first expressed fears about a powerful central government, would support a revised, more centrist view if they were with us today. Jefferson would get physically ill to see the power of banks, huge corporations, unions, Wall Street, and especially the lobbyists. He would rail against their oppression of the common man. However, I believe he would support social security and the new health care reform because of the benefits provided for the average citizen. He would have supported financial regulations from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the current efforts to regulate consumer credit and financial institutions. I'm not sure how much he would support the effort to check terrorism in Afghanistan, but he would not have expected the Virginla Militia to respond to the 9/11 attack. Our world is different than Jefferson's and I think he would admit that a functional, effective federal government would be necessary to keep the enormous influence of money and power in check, as well as to protect us from dangers far more imminent than he could imagine in his day.
So, I'm not attacking you or your position on the power of the federal government. I'm just suggesting that now, more than at any other time in our history, with the world so small and change so rapid, we must be equipped to act as one nation. In a general way, I see the steps taken by the current administration and Congress as a reasonable and potentially correct response to the problems we faced in 2008. Everyone is concerned about the financial cost of these steps. There are strong indicators that they will ultimately work and only speculation that they will "destroy this nation". I prefer seeing some positive turn around to the prospect of where we would be today with 'more of the same'. We will see.

[Guest]

Everything passed by this corrupt regime and incompetent Congress will be repealed and Jefferson will stop turning in his grave.

[Guest]

I agree with Pats2010 that Jefferson and all of the founding fathers are spinning in their graves! They designed the constitution to have only those powers delegated to it by the states IN ORDER TO KEEP CONTROL AWAY from a central government. They were the Gates, Buffetts and Gores of their day - there was NO WAY they wanted govt interference in their affairs! The war they fought was AGAINST TAXATION - they were NOT seeking to collect taxes and turn them over to a govt that would REDISTRIBUTE. They fully intended to KEEP the money they made!

In your treatise you state, "He would rail against their oppression of the common man" in reference to Jefferson. I cannot imagine how you could presuppose to know his intent [unless you can channel his spirit for such insight], and would venture just the opposite...Jefferson was one of the oppressors...he, too was a slave owner. The only entity that is doing its best to oppress me and to take my hard earned money and lifestyle so some slug can live a better life is this administration!

I overcame coming from the wrong side of the tracks to rise with a college degree and a career that led to management positions - no one redistributed a thing to me - when my parents needed a helping hand the govt looked at their tax return and told them they made too much and turned down their request for assistance! I had to work for every step I took and every dollar I made and saved. I weaved and bobbed around every obstacle put in front of me, including those placed there by every administration since the 60s; and I am trying to do the same with this administration. The only difference now is that this administration refuses to listen to my voice and the cries of the multitudes who do not want to go where we are being shoved.

I am happy for you that you are not one of the oppressed.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

[Guest]

Can we just agree that ijusluvit does not know the meaning of the word "Fascist"? In fact, his posts in this thread and what he is supporting, namely the government taking over for our own good, is indeed Fascism and hence ijusluvit is a hypocrite.

[Guest]

Can we just agree that ijusluvit does not know the meaning of the word "Fascist"? In fact, his posts in this thread and what he is supporting, namely the government taking over for our own good, is indeed Fascism and hence ijusluvit is a hypocrite.

At last, someone said it!!!!

Thank you Richie

[Guest]

This is a joke right? You gotta be kidding.... Did you forget already what liberals said and did to Sarah Palin?

Honey, we didn't have to do too much to that trailer trash trainwreck of a woman. Who the hell can't remember what magazine she reads? Was Redbook or Ladies Home Journal too difficult too remember? Don't tell me Katie Couric surprised her with that trick question.

Couldn't have darling Bristol kept her knees together during the campaign? She's not engaged any more because Levi got some other "nice girl" knocked up.

Oh, "Miss, I can see Russia from my house, Sarah"... isn't saying, "Drill, baby, Drill" these days... she's really busy tap-dancing around that one and denying she ever said it. Like every other stupid thing that ever came out of that woman's mouth.

The Liberal Democrats couldn't have made up the crap she did to herself about the $150k of clothes and the stuff with the house built with city money and just the general daily garbage that comes out of her mouth. She went to 7 different colleges. What does that mean? It means when things go too hot, she left for another school, duh. For god's sake, if she couldn't hack it as governor and QUIT, why would anyone for her again????

[Guest]

This is a joke right? You gotta be kidding.... Did you forget already what liberals said and did to Sarah Palin?

Honey, we didn't have to do too much to that trailer trash trainwreck of a woman. Who the hell can't remember what magazine she reads? Was Redbook or Ladies Home Journal too difficult to remember? Don't tell me Katie Couric surprised her with that trick question.

Couldn't have darling Bristol kept her knees together during the campaign? She's not engaged any more because Levi got some other "nice girl" knocked up.

Oh, "Miss, I can see Russia from my house, Sarah"... isn't saying, "Drill, baby, Drill" these days... she's really busy tap-dancing around that one and denying she ever said it. Like every other stupid thing that ever came out of that woman's mouth.

The Liberal Democrats couldn't have made up the crap she did to herself about the $150k of clothes and the stuff with the house built with city money, and just the general daily garbage that comes out of her mouth. She went to 7 different colleges. What does that mean? It means when things go too hot, she left for another school, duh. For god's sake, if she couldn't hack it as governor and QUIT, why would anyone for her again????

Sarah Palin is a Republican one-liner.

[Guest]

Honey, we didn't have to do too much to that trailer trash trainwreck of a woman. Who the hell can't remember what magazine she reads? Was Redbook or Ladies Home Journal too difficult to remember? Don't tell me Katie Couric surprised her with that trick question.

Couldn't have darling Bristol kept her knees together during the campaign? She's not engaged any more because Levi got some other "nice girl" knocked up.

Oh, "Miss, I can see Russia from my house, Sarah"... isn't saying, "Drill, baby, Drill" these days... she's really busy tap-dancing around that one and denying she ever said it. Like every other stupid thing that ever came out of that woman's mouth.

The Liberal Democrats couldn't have made up the crap she did to herself about the $150k of clothes and the stuff with the house built with city money, and just the general daily garbage that comes out of her mouth. She went to 7 different colleges. What does that mean? It means when things go too hot, she left for another school, duh. For god's sake, if she couldn't hack it as governor and QUIT, why would anyone for her again????

Sarah Palin is a Republican one-liner.

It sounds like you covered everything on your little talking points list. They say that women who have a problem with Sarah ....well. Must be some kind of jealousy issue.:1rotfl:

Just a thought: Wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin could be the Speaker of the House and replace Nancy "Lets pass the bil so we can see what's in it" Pilosi.

[Guest]

I also stay in this forum to try to participate in intelligent discussion, so I'll go right to what you describe as your problem "handing over that much power to the federal government." That's really at the core of disagreement between conservatives and liberals, so lets talk about it. In the short term, a mere 18 months, the current administration and Congress has taken a number of steps, none of which is appears to be unconstitutional. If any of those actions are unconstitutional they will be addressed in the future by the courts according to our pretty good formula for the separation and balance of powers. If any of those actions proves so unpopular with the electorate, they will be repealed in the future. IMHO I do not believe that any of the recent laws passed or actions taken will be overturned in the future. More importantly, I suggest that Thomas Jefferson and others who first expressed fears about a powerful central government, would support a revised, more centrist view if they were with us today. Jefferson would get physically ill to see the power of banks, huge corporations, unions, Wall Street, and especially the lobbyists. He would rail against their oppression of the common man. However, I believe he would support social security and the new health care reform because of the benefits provided for the average citizen. He would have supported financial regulations from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the current efforts to regulate consumer credit and financial institutions. I'm not sure how much he would support the effort to check terrorism in Afghanistan, but he would not have expected the Virginla Militia to respond to the 9/11 attack. Our world is different than Jefferson's and I think he would admit that a functional, effective federal government would be necessary to keep the enormous influence of money and power in check, as well as to protect us from dangers far more imminent than he could imagine in his day. So, I'm not attacking you or your position on the power of the federal government. I'm just suggesting that now, more than at any other time in our history, with the world so small and change so rapid, we must be equipped to act as one nation. In a general way, I see the steps taken by the current administration and Congress as a reasonable and potentially correct response to the problems we faced in 2008Everyone is concerned about the financial cost of these steps. There are strong indicators that they will ultimately work and only speculation that they will "destroy this nation". I prefer seeing some positive turn around to the prospect of where we would be today with 'more of the same'. We will see.

You are correct that we shall see some of the changes will hold up as Constitutional. Several states are involved in challenges as we "speak" to the Constitutionality of the health care reform bill for just one example.

Just the very fact that states have the understanding of our great republic and separation of powers to challenge something is joyful to me. It shows that the powers held at local levels are still intact. The fact that the federal government challeges states rights makes me tremble.

I don't for a second believe the framers of the US Constitution "would support a revised, more centrist view." That centrist view is exactly what they were escaping.

What we forget when we say "Founders" is that Washington, Adams, Jackson, Clay, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton and others who framed a new government, didn't set sail from Great Britian to come to America to form a new nation.

Most are descendents of the original settlers who came to escape the "centrist views" in far flung lands long before the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for the colonies. Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere.

I think it's important to remember that in order to understand what freedoms and liberties they risked thier lives for and sought and fought for and appreciated. To understand and appreciate this is to understand that the "Founders" would never accept government control and a forced health care system or even social services paid for by forced taxation.

And remember, Jefferson wasn't our only framer of this nation. He was one of many with many different views on what would be a great federalist republic. That is the whole premise to the government we have today. It isn't a democracy where the majority rules.

As to the banks and unions and cooperations and Wall Street, if we had stayed true the course of the Constitution and not veered on the Progressive path, there wouldn't be a discussion of Jefferson railing against these very separate issues you mentioned.

I think the history of the creation of the US Coast Guard (The Revenue Cutter Service) is very important and gives much insight into true American history. Not what we are spoon fed today. Read about John Hancock's slope The Liberty.

Sorry to be so wordy.

[Guest]

You are correct that we shall see some of the changes will hold up as Constitutional. Several states are involved in challenges as we "speak" to the Constitutionality of the health care reform bill for just one example.

Just the very fact that states have the understanding of our great republic and separation of powers to challenge something is joyful to me. It shows that the powers held at local levels are still intact. The fact that the federal government challeges states rights makes me tremble.

I don't for a second believe the framers of the US Constitution "would support a revised, more centrist view." That centrist view is exactly what they were escaping.

What we forget when we say "Founders" is that Washington, Adams, Jackson, Clay, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton and others who framed a new government, didn't set sail from Great Britian to come to America to form a new nation.

Most are descendents of the original settlers who came to escape the "centrist views" in far flung lands long before the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for the colonies. Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere.

I think it's important to remember that in order to understand what freedoms and liberties they risked thier lives for and sought and fought for and appreciated. To understand and appreciate this is to understand that the "Founders" would never accept government control and a forced health care system or even social services paid for by forced taxation.

And remember, Jefferson wasn't our only framer of this nation. He was one of many with many different views on what would be a great federalist republic. That is the whole premise to the government we have today. It isn't a democracy where the majority rules.

As to the banks and unions and cooperations and Wall Street, if we had stayed true the course of the Constitution and not veered on the Progressive path, there wouldn't be a discussion of Jefferson railing against these very separate issues you mentioned.

I think the history of the creation of the US Coast Guard (The Revenue Cutter Service) is very important and gives much insight into true American history. Not what we are spoon fed today. Read about John Hancock's slope The Liberty.

Sorry to be so wordy.

Excellent post BK. It is obvious that you did your homework.After I read your post I felt my blood pressure drop.:thumbup:

[Guest]

BK: I almost completely agree with you. I *do* think the founders, if they looked at the country today, would support SOME increases in Federal involvement but certainly not the way things have progressed these days.

Remember, the idea was to safeguard the rights of the people. So, for example, you might very well have an FDA, but it might look different than the one we have today. No, check that, I can GUARANTEE it would be different from the one we have today.

[Guest]

Honey, we didn't have to do too much to that trailer trash trainwreck of a woman. Who the hell can't remember what magazine she reads? Was Redbook or Ladies Home Journal too difficult too remember? Don't tell me Katie Couric surprised her with that trick question.

Couldn't have darling Bristol kept her knees together during the campaign? She's not engaged any more because Levi got some other "nice girl" knocked up.

Oh, "Miss, I can see Russia from my house, Sarah"... isn't saying, "Drill, baby, Drill" these days... she's really busy tap-dancing around that one and denying she ever said it. Like every other stupid thing that ever came out of that woman's mouth.

The Liberal Democrats couldn't have made up the crap she did to herself about the $150k of clothes and the stuff with the house built with city money and just the general daily garbage that comes out of her mouth. She went to 7 different colleges. What does that mean? It means when things go too hot, she left for another school, duh. For god's sake, if she couldn't hack it as governor and QUIT, why would anyone for her again????

Laurie -
guess the liberals couldn't criticize her for her political views so they had to dig in on the personal stuff, eh?

[Guest]

You are correct that we shall see some of the changes will hold up as Constitutional. Several states are involved in challenges as we "speak" to the Constitutionality of the health care reform bill for just one example.

Just the very fact that states have the understanding of our great republic and separation of powers to challenge something is joyful to me. It shows that the powers held at local levels are still intact. The fact that the federal government challeges states rights makes me tremble.

I don't for a second believe the framers of the US Constitution "would support a revised, more centrist view." That centrist view is exactly what they were escaping.

What we forget when we say "Founders" is that Washington, Adams, Jackson, Clay, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton and others who framed a new government, didn't set sail from Great Britian to come to America to form a new nation.

Most are descendents of the original settlers who came to escape the "centrist views" in far flung lands long before the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for the colonies. Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere.

I think it's important to remember that in order to understand what freedoms and liberties they risked thier lives for and sought and fought for and appreciated. To understand and appreciate this is to understand that the "Founders" would never accept government control and a forced health care system or even social services paid for by forced taxation.

And remember, Jefferson wasn't our only framer of this nation. He was one of many with many different views on what would be a great federalist republic. That is the whole premise to the government we have today. It isn't a democracy where the majority rules.

As to the banks and unions and cooperations and Wall Street, if we had stayed true the course of the Constitution and not veered on the Progressive path, there wouldn't be a discussion of Jefferson railing against these very separate issues you mentioned.

I think the history of the creation of the US Coast Guard (The Revenue Cutter Service) is very important and gives much insight into true American history. Not what we are spoon fed today. Read about John Hancock's slope The Liberty.

Sorry to be so wordy.


I sincerely appreciate your polite approach to debate and you never have to apologize for being wordy!
A few comments about your points:

Yes, the states have the constitutional ability to challenge and push action which might end up overturning federal law. I too like that balancing aspect aspect of our government. My contention is that the actions taken by the current administration and Congress will not be overturned. I believe the opposition to these actions and laws will fade rather quickly as time passes and the benefits of these actions become more obvious. I made a list of those actions and would like to hear why you think any one of them is, in total, more negative than positive. I'll exempt the stimulus programs and health care reform legislation for the moment because we probably could each write our fingers the bone advocating our for/against positions. But what makes these actions more negative than positive: consumer credit protection legislation, banking and finance regulations, the Disclose Act, and the $20 billion BP escrow? All are deliberate attempts to check the activities of capitalist institutions. You will NEVER hear me suggesting that we need to replace our form of capitalism. But I think regulatory limits are necessary for the simple reason that capitalists are by definition devoted solely to their own interests, regardless of the 'common good'. They have no accountability to society at large. Government, no matter how big, is legally required to operate in the interests of the people, with theoretically accountable elected representatives. Isn't it interesting how some people would support almost anything which would force politicians to be accountable, and act in the best interests of the electorate, while opposing anything which might regulate the actions of people in the business world?

About Jefferson, whom I selected because he is usually seen as the leading critic of a powerful federal government: I commented about what he would have supported had he known our history as we do. It seems to me you focused exclusively on what motivated Jefferson and others to come to the colonies and how careful they were to protect states rights while forming a federal government. That was the early phase of their personal histories and what they may have brought with them to the Constitutional Convention. But I was referring to the longer view, what Jefferson saw later as the new nation emerged; the need for a unified country and government. His interest and pursuit of the Presidency, and the two farthest reaching actions he took in that office, (advocating the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase), demonstrate his evolving desire to strengthen the national presence and power of the United States. All of his successors who are considered great, or 'near great' did exactly the same. This is not to say that any of these leaders rejected the interests of the ordinary citizen, or of the states. The best of them guided us through our worst crises by exercising strong federal power in enlightened, responsible fashion. This is what I see as the 'centrist' view. Jefferson's actions show he evolved into a more centrist view during his presidency and that he would have continued on that path had he faced the problems of the 19th and 20th centuries.

There is nothing specific in the Constitution designed to prevent the colossal greed and calculated amassing of power which some of our citizens have thrust upon the rest of us. The federal government has addressed related problems almost from the very beginning, occasionally in a workable fashion, often with flaws. The imperfect efforts do not mean that the efforts should be abandoned.
After all, if not the federal government, who is going to give us at least an opportunity to realize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The story of the creation of the US Coast Guard is not well known or often cited as a critical piece of US history. Perhaps you might summarize the points you think support your position about the power of the federal government.

Thanks for listening.

[Guest]

Laurie91423, All I can say is what a rant!!! Just for the record, Palin never said she could see Russia from her house, Tina Fey said it. I don't know if Palin is saying "drill baby drill," or not, but I am.

[Guest]

of a woman who needs to *wink* to get her point across? I think not. I'm not jealous, I'm ashamed that this country was the laughing stock of the civilized world when they saw who's McCain's running mate was. I might have voted for him? Well, probably not, but geez, couldn't his team have come up with anyone better than her?

Gotta say one thing, she's making some Judith Lieber bag out of that sow's ear. Brava, Brava. I can give credit where credit where credit is do...even if I still think she's the village idiot... fortunately in another village.

[Guest]

Laurie91423, All I can say is what a rant!!! Just for the record, Palin never said she could see Russia from her house, Tina Fey said it. I don't know if Palin is saying "drill baby drill," or not, but I am.

Apparently, you've never heard one of us *dyed in the wool* liberals really go for it. We get really effing testy when our buttons are pushed and people are all up in our faces arguing that we're socialists, when they don't really know what the heck we stand for or against.

I'd rather that my coastline isn't any more screwed up than BP has already made it. I've seen enough dead dolphins and we're not going to be eating any oysters from the Gulf of Mexico for years. Until they know the *worst case scenarios*, let them drill somewhere else; not on the shores of the U.S. anyway. Or should I just be glad I didn't buy my house on the coast of Florida?

I'm not thrilled with Obama. He's a pussy. I was hoping he's talk softly and carry a big d*** (stick). I wanted the war over with and our boys home. We didn't find Osama Bin Ladin and we don't have the money to waste looking for him. The situation is a fiasco. Being in an unwinnable war between crazy Arab factions (that have been fighting since biblical times)will never find jobs for people. And we are throwing good money after bad, the Bush bailout was bad enough... we didn't need to add to AIG. He also promised to end *Don't ask, don't tell* and he didn't do that. I'm very disappointed in every damned campaign promise he made. But I never would have voted for the other team...EVER. My father would have rolled over in his grave.

[Guest]

Regardless of your politics, your vulgar language is not accepted or appropriate here. "Profanity is the weapon of the witless."

[Guest]

people, nothing to see here but the typical extreme left-wing talking points.

The hateful venom spewing from the progressive ilk is positive proof that Sarah is saying the right things. I think jealousy is still on the table.

[Guest]

Amen, bkcunningham. When people have to use that kind of language, to express their opinions I figure it is a lack of intelligence or upbringing.

[Guest]

people, nothing to see here but the typical extreme left-wing talking points.

The hateful venom spewing from the progressive ilk is positive proof that Sarah is saying the right things. I think jealousy is still on the table.

i somewhat disagree, pats2010...i think the postings of the liberals continue to prove the point that all they have to lean on is talking points because the things that have been done by this administration give them no other choice.

the language that is posted just goes to show the level that the liberals have to sink to. someone needs to reminD them GEORGE BUSH AND SARAH PALIN ARE NOT A CANDIDATES IN THIS ELECTION!

[Guest]

Responding to ijusluvit; again forgive my wordiness.

You really raise some interesting and very insightful points, which I guess you'll be able to tell, I have opinions about. To address part of your response: The Embargo Act is a perfect example of why the US Constitution limits the powers of the "federal" government. Let me start by saying the Embargo Act was repelled three days before Jefferson left office. Why? Because the states believed it threatened their sovereign powers. And they were correct.

What prompted Jefferson and the Congress to enact the Embargo Act isn't proof of their desire for a more centric government or more federal guidance. They had just fought and were still fighting to get away from that form of government. The Embargo Act was a horrible mistake that Jefferson admitted to before he repelled it.

Jefferson and other "founders" had many different views and ideas about government. That is why Jefferson drafted the Bill of Rights, the first amendments to the Constitution. Still, the Constitution allows for these differences to be represented from the local level and the states without destroying the nation or demanding everyone believe in the same thing.

The Embargo Act was a true test of the Constittution and states rights. It was enacted while America was just a little more than 20 years independent from British rule. The British were using impressment to capture sailors on our ships they suspected of being British citizens and forcing them into the Royal Navy. The Embargo Act stopped this but drove up prices of shipping overseas and caused problems for the states who depended on import and export.

The cause of the Embargo Act was the Napoleonic Wars, the series of wars that broke out after the French Revolution. The Napoleonic War limited free enterprise and trade. By forbidding trade with either side, including England and France, Jefferson hoped to keep the new Americas neutral. But it was a disaster. The British Orders in Council and the French Continental System forbade trade to nations friends to these nations.

When I think of a new nation being built at a time like this in world history, I am all the more impressed with the founders of this nation creating a Federalist Republic Constitutional government.

Even the Lousiana Purchase, which Jefferson struggled with and admitted may not be Constititional, was done in hopes of securing our trade ports and allowing exploration westward and was done as an act of foreign affairs with other nations, which Jefferson believed to be one of the roles of the federal government. "This little event, of France's possessing herself of Louisiana is the embryo of a tornado which will burst on the countries on both sides of the Atlantic and involve in it's effects their highest destinies, " Jefferson wrote.

You asked about the role of the first Coast Guard in the formation of the federal government. Again, the Embargo Act and the history leading up to the Act will explain my point. The world moved by sea. Countries were protected by invasion by sea. That is why our Federal government was given permission by the states in the constitution to protect our borders from invasion.

During this time in American history, the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair took place on June 22, 1807. Basically it involved the British warship HMS Leopard and the American USS Chesapeake. The British were guarding the US port at Chesapeake, Va., against imports from the French.

Although not the direct cause, it certainly was one incident that lead to the War of 1812. Anyway, when the Chesapeake was fired upon by the British when the Americans refused to allow British soldiers to board to look for deserters from the British Navy, we fought back. We lost.

The Americans were outraged and the American Ambassador to Great Britain, James Monroe, then a foreign minister acting under U.S. Secretary of State James Madison, made many demands including the British keep their warships out of U.S. territorial waters. Americans wanted revenge, not just words. But Jefferson turned to diplomacy with the Embargo Act. It failed and the states rights were upheld.


Just something to think about. Why do we say federal government? Have you ever thought about that? It is because we have a federalist republic form of government in this country.

Federalism as defined by Noah Webster: the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units.

So now we must define the Republic part of our government:

Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

It is such a unique and beautiful thing. It gives us the greatest liberty, freedoms and individuality respecting others rights known to any civilation. We, you and me, have the power on the local level to vote and choice people who are like us to represent us on the very smallest of local levels. We know these people who may be our neighbors and friends. It isn't a single person in most cases, it is a group of individuals who make up, say a town council or a county board of supervisors. This way, each voice gets represented in the fairest manner known to man.

To make things jive between localities within this state, we can vote and have people who represent our local interests on the state level. The premise is to have the voices of your neighborhood heard.

Then to represent our state's interest on the limited federal level, we have representatives for that as well. This way, there isn't one majority of opinion that prevails and overlooks the voices of the minorities in a locality. It is representative of voices from the smallest local level. When we give these decisions over to others, we never get them back.

[Guest]

bk - It appears you are actually beginning to agree with me about the role of the federal government. The details you cited about the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase actually illustrate how high a priority it was for Jefferson to attempt to strengthen the country as a whole. He may have thought long and hard about the implications of both actions on state and local governments, but he took the actions, for better (Louisiana), or worse (Embargo).

So, jumping to the present, I am still looking forward to hearing your opinion of the actions taken by the current Congress and administration, using the authority of the federal government to rather dramatically check the actions of banks, credit corporations, unions, investment houses and huge multinational corporations (BP). I'll agree that none of these steps are absolutely perfect. They are all strong assertions of federal authority and other than philosophical opposition, I'd like to know specifically what you think is negative about them.

[Guest]

bk - It appears you are actually beginning to agree with me about the role of the federal government. The details you cited about the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase actually illustrate how high a priority it was for Jefferson to attempt to strengthen the country as a whole. He may have thought long and hard about the implications of both actions on state and local governments, but he took the actions, for better (Louisiana), or worse (Embargo).

So, jumping to the present, I am still looking forward to hearing your opinion of the actions taken by the current Congress and administration, using the authority of the federal government to rather dramatically check the actions of banks, credit corporations, unions, investment houses and huge multinational corporations (BP). I'll agree that none of these steps are absolutely perfect. They are all strong assertions of federal authority and other than philosophical opposition, I'd like to know specifically what you think is negative about them.

Since you seem to be a fan of history, you'll agree that the prosperity and liberties achieved by capitalism and free markets overwhelmingly outways prosperity and liberty gained through fascism and government control. I don't agree with a ruling class of intellectuals, bereaucrats and social engineers deciding what society wants or needs. That is what we are protected from with the Constitution.

When our government spends our money to help us and protect us, bad things happen.

My question to you is, who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

[Guest]

Since you seem to be a fan of history, you'll agree that the prosperity and liberties achieved by capitalism and free markets overwhelmingly outways prosperity and liberty gained through fascism and government control. I don't agree with a ruling class of intellectuals, bereaucrats and social engineers deciding what society wants or needs. That is what we are protected from with the Constitution.

When our government spends our money to help us and protect us, bad things happen.

My question to you is, who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?

[Guest]

people, nothing to see here but the typical extreme left-wing talking points.

The hateful venom spewing from the progressive ilk is positive proof that Sarah is saying the right things. I think jealousy is still on the table.


But.... Bush and Palin aren't running... and neither is Kerry...

If I can't mention Bush or Palin, why do you get to throw up Kerry? Where's the fairness in that? Are these the Republican rules??? :censored:

You've already decided that I cannot swear. I suppose spitting on the sidewalk it out. Do you sell liquor on Sunday? Can I gamble on Sunday? I'm just waiting for the "Official List" when we close on the house. :police:

My husband and I were both born in New York City and have spent the last 35 years in Los Angeles. I'm sure we're going to have enough culture shock for a lifetime. Are we going to regret that we didn't buy a place in Boca? :cryin2:

[Guest]

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?


ijusluvit, I apologize that I didn't explain my opinions better and you misunderstood my answer. Since you said you are a big fan of capitalism and cited your objections to fascism, I wrongly assumed you understood my response.

In a similar political discussion with a friend and a similar misunderstanding that kept going in circles with us both thinking we were getting our points across. We finally realized it was a left brain/right brain (no pun intended) personality thing with how we see things and answer questions.

What I am saying is the problem I have with the federal government involvement of these things is just that; federal government involvement and control means less control on the local level.

It's easier to see something and understand the immediate repercussions when you are closer to the source. Whether the issue is lending to someone buying a home in your neighborhood, arresting and processing someone through the courts system, schools in your neighborhood, businesses in your neighborhood or someone campaigning in your neighbor.

So with that said, for me to explain my objections with the BP issue, I have to be wordy, so please bear with me.

I could easily say it has never been legally proved that "BP" did anything criminal. BP wasn't the only corporation involved in the drilling. There were individual people on that rig that may or may not have been involved in criminality.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financial and the criminality aspects. Regarding the good faith fund setup by BP and the manner it was initiated, Obama simply bypassed the legal process set up in our Constitution. This will come back to do legal injuries to the people in the Gulf with grievances, true of false grievances, when it comes their day in court. That is my opinion and only time will tell on that one.

Anyway....

The first thing that bothers me is the reason the company was drilling so far offshore at an unprecedented depth in the first place. This is a good example of what happens when the federal government is in charge. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy." Earlier history of similar controversies over states rights has led us to where we are today with the federal government overseeing the Mines, Minerals and Energy in this country.

There are federal regulatory agencies who oversee the drilling of offshore oil. Isn't it their job to assure that the drilling is done properly? One of these agencies is the Minerals Services Agency. This agency oversees the leases and the regulation of the rigs. Does that seem like a conflict of interest?

I believe the blowout and the failures in the automatic shutoff valves happened because of the depths (over 18,000 feet) the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling. The temperatures and pressures are unpredictable below 10,000 feet. The depth hindered BP's robotic subs with efforts to shut off the valves and stop the leaks.

We all saw the confusion and wasted time with determining who was "in charge," who had authority to do various things or not do various things from booms to skimming. In the midst of all the insanity, even BP saw the importance, even if it was only on the surface without the true understanding of discussion of local level, to have someone from the area representing their company.

How many times did a local judge make a ruling and say to lift the moratoriums imposed on the federal levels and how many times did the federal government challenge that order? These are the kinds of things that make people question the far away, out of touch federal governments true objectives.

It was a blame game with the government's involvement and threats becoming nothing more than posturing for the sake of politics and policy to pursue their agenda and increase taxes. Eric Holder went to the Gulf to investigate criminality before the disaster was even close to being under control.

If this has been confined to a local problem from the time that drilling permits and regulation of leasing even started, it would have been easier to handle.

But here is my biggest concern with the entire BP fiasco. BP is people. A corporation is people. People on every level of management, but people nonetheless. There were people on that rig that may or may not have made mistakes. Tony Hayward wasn't on the rig.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financially and criminality. Obama simple bypassed this process set up in our Constitution.

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works.

Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.

[Guest]

ijusluvit, just so you don't think I'm not respondng, I'll get to my objections to the finance and banking regulations after I finish some things here in the real world.

[Guest]

ijusluvit, I apologize that I didn't explain my opinions better and you misunderstood my answer. Since you said you are a big fan of capitalism and cited your objections to fascism, I wrongly assumed you understood my response.

In a similar political discussion with a friend and a similar misunderstanding that kept going in circles with us both thinking we were getting our points across. We finally realized it was a left brain/right brain (no pun intended) personality thing with how we see things and answer questions.

What I am saying is the problem I have with the federal government involvement of these things is just that; federal government involvement and control means less control on the local level.

It's easier to see something and understand the immediate repercussions when you are closer to the source. Whether the issue is lending to someone buying a home in your neighborhood, arresting and processing someone through the courts system, schools in your neighborhood, businesses in your neighborhood or someone campaigning in your neighbor.

So with that said, for me to explain my objections with the BP issue, I have to be wordy, so please bear with me.

I could easily say it has never been legally proved that "BP" did anything criminal. BP wasn't the only corporation involved in the drilling. There were individual people on that rig that may or may not have been involved in criminality.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financial and the criminality aspects. Regarding the good faith fund setup by BP and the manner it was initiated, Obama simply bypassed the legal process set up in our Constitution. This will come back to do legal injuries to the people in the Gulf with grievances, true of false grievances, when it comes their day in court. That is my opinion and only time will tell on that one.

Anyway....

The first thing that bothers me is the reason the company was drilling so far offshore at an unprecedented depth in the first place. This is a good example of what happens when the federal government is in charge. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy." Earlier history of similar controversies over states rights has led us to where we are today with the federal government overseeing the Mines, Minerals and Energy in this country.

There are federal regulatory agencies who oversee the drilling of offshore oil. Isn't it their job to assure that the drilling is done properly? One of these agencies is the Minerals Services Agency. This agency oversees the leases and the regulation of the rigs. Does that seem like a conflict of interest?

I believe the blowout and the failures in the automatic shutoff valves happened because of the depths (over 18,000 feet) the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling. The temperatures and pressures are unpredictable below 10,000 feet. The depth hindered BP's robotic subs with efforts to shut off the valves and stop the leaks.

We all saw the confusion and wasted time with determining who was "in charge," who had authority to do various things or not do various things from booms to skimming. In the midst of all the insanity, even BP saw the importance, even if it was only on the surface without the true understanding of discussion of local level, to have someone from the area representing their company.

How many times did a local judge make a ruling and say to lift the moratoriums imposed on the federal levels and how many times did the federal government challenge that order? These are the kinds of things that make people question the far away, out of touch federal governments true objectives.

It was a blame game with the government's involvement and threats becoming nothing more than posturing for the sake of politics and policy to pursue their agenda and increase taxes. Eric Holder went to the Gulf to investigate criminality before the disaster was even close to being under control.

If this has been confined to a local problem from the time that drilling permits and regulation of leasing even started, it would have been easier to handle.

But here is my biggest concern with the entire BP fiasco. BP is people. A corporation is people. People on every level of management, but people nonetheless. There were people on that rig that may or may not have made mistakes. Tony Hayward wasn't on the rig.

We have a system of courts set up in this country to address the issues, the legal issues in ALL aspects of this, financially and criminality. Obama simple bypassed this process set up in our Constitution.

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works.

Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.

I am awed by your ability to present your ideas clearly and objectively. You have a magnificent mind BK.

[Guest]

Thank you Gracie for your very kind words. I honestly try to get my views and ideas across clearly without belittling anyone, without playing any typical "gotcha" games or setting somebody up. I really hope what I'm saying to ijusluvit is clear. Reading back over my response, I don't know if it is clearly stated or not. So your words were encouragement to me.

You and I both know, for some people politics is a passionate thing to discuss. You know what we were taught when we were young about discussing politics and religion. The rebellious part of me still loves to venture there and dare to have a good discussion about both.

I think we are all guilty of letting our passions get in the way of manners and politeness in these discussions. When the air clears, we can see it just drives a wedge in healthy discussions and understanding of each others' reasons for believing certain things.

[Guest]

bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?

It is difficult to discuss the massive, sweeping financial regulation bill signed into law July 21, 2010, by Obama. Even experts who will be directly involved in the changes made with the bill really have no idea what the true impact will be. Not just because of the immensity of the language, but because it isn't finished.

The bill gives banking and market regulators up to two years to write many of the new regulations required by the law. What does this do but open the doors for some powerful lobbying on behalf of special interests. Here's a quote from the NY Times regarding the Dodd/Shumer Bill to show this point, "Nearly 150 lobbyists registered since last year used to work in the executive branch at financial agencies, from lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission to Federal Reserve bankers, according to data analyzed for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. In addition, dozens of former lawyers for the government, who are not registered as lobbyists, are now scouring the financial regulations on behalf of corporate clients."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/28lobby.html?_r=1


Really, I don't know what impacts, good or bad will come of this. Do you know the answer to that ijusluvit?

I'd love to hear your opinions and insights into the specifics of this bill.

Here are a few of my observations though. As the government pushes the private sector out of the equation and the feds give billions of taxpayer monies to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we were told, and people are expected to trust sight unseen, that it is going to provide safeguards for millions of consumers and is written to restrain Wall Street excesses that could set off a new recession.

I don't buy anything sight unseen. Especially when it comes to the federal government's control in light of the roles government played in federally controlled Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Congressional oversight and Henry Paulson has played in all of this mess. What has the federal government been in charge of that has run successfully? The federal government consumes, it doesn't produce anything.

The president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called the law "a financial regulatory boondoggle." Maybe he knows something we don't. I do know the new law also puts in place a new board of regulators who are suppose to be watchful of risks across the finance system.

It also creates a powerful independent consumer financial protection bureau within the Federal Reserve to write and enforce new regulations covering lending and credit. More beurocrats with unreined and unprecedented power. So much for checks and balances.

When you answer the question asked above, I respectively ask you again: Who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?

[Guest]

Hey BK. Thanks for the responses. Now we're cooking! I agree with Gracie too that you're presenting ideas well. But speaking of the real world, my niece is getting married later today, on the front lawn of our summer place. I'm kinda busy. Will get back asap!

[Guest]

BK - I've read your posts carefully and here's where I see things a little differently, and why.

First, I too think it is more appropriate for many life activities to be under local control. You might even say that in most places (except Bell, CA, for example), more can be done more efficiently and with better accountability. I'd even go so far as to make a new axiom I think you'll love: "The farther away things are managed from the local level, the greater the chance for error, inefficiency, and higher costs." But I have one major problem with this. Who is going to protect us from the systematically greedy, the individuals and organizations which have immense power, even to the point of being able to fend of control by anyone, including the federal government? Who is going to defend us against terrorism? Who is going to insure that the Constitution as well as local and state laws are upheld, applied and supported. The answer is the federal government, regardless of how frustrated I am with Washington bureaucracy. Look at Homeland Security for example. Their money has been spent by the truck load for almost 10 years. Even their own officials admit they have often been woefully inefficient. They keep trying new things that don't work very well, but cost a fortune. The story of airline security devices and procedures is almost a comedy - but it isn't funny. But the bottom line is that the rush to respond to 9/11, by thousands of additional employees, at a very high cost, is perhaps why we have not had a couple more 9/11s. It's scary to read of all the plots which get exposed before they unfold in tragedy. I don't believe these stories are cooked up to make us think Homeland Security is just peachy and deserves even more money.
So, with some regret that things don't work better, I am willing to pay the price of living in this incredibly complex America. Our prosperous, free lifestyle makes us the target of every fringe group and half the nations of the world. It will continue to cost a lot to defend ourselves.
Take another example. I hate war more than anything else. I have seldom seen it as productive in any way, while always obscenely costly, especially in peoples lives. In my book, and many historians now agree - perhaps the worst decision ever made by a US President was to invade Iraq. And there is a voice in my head that yells every day: "Get out of Afghanistan NOW". But I know what will happen if we do not accomplish the bulk of our objectives there, as well as in Pakistan. Several million Afghani supporters will be executed, and terrorist forces will achieve an unprecedented legitimacy and power boost. We will lose, short and long term and the future costs of defeat will skyrocket. Regrettably, we simply cannot deal with any of this without a powerful national government and armed force.

I do not let costs determine my political orientation. I've resisted condemning a particular administration or Congress just because of a tax or cost which affected me. I try to hang onto the long view. As a lower middle class kid who's father struggled to put food on the table for seven kids by running a marginal small business, I learned important things by cleaning bathrooms and carrying steel bars from the age of 10. My wife and I lived on a $45 weekly take home check in the summer of 1968 while we looked for teaching jobs. We've worked 40 years to graduate to the full-fledged middle class! Throughout this whole time, the costs imposed on me by ALL of the governments which tax me have only marginally affected my life, despite how conservatives scream that this or that new law will destroy us financially. For me it's probably only been the difference between a Chevy and a fancy Buick. When I think of the enormous cost of keeping this country afloat I am amazed at our stability. Almost every TV person I know admits the same thing: our lifestyle has remained rather stable in recent years. We were not even ruined by the recession, (I'll get to that when I comment about your views on domestic policy), even if we did lose some paper wealth. I can think of two exceptions, both because of health care costs, both who rejoiced the day the health care reform legislation passed. So, my conclusion is that we have the ability to defend our nation without collapsing from within. And regardless of mistakes made by dumb or selfish politicians, we hardly notice the affect, save that awful loss of life.

So, to summarize, I believe we need a powerful federal government, capable of swift and effective response, WHEN NEEDED.

Enough philosophy. Let me apply this to your opinion of the BP escrow case. I'm afraid I disagree that the President's forceful insistence that BP set aside a specific escrow to repair the disaster was either illegal or premature. The Constitution characterizes the role of the President as an initiator, proposer, leader, etc ., with the understanding that this leadership will provide the basis for legislation, where necessary. There are Presidential powers, it is not merely the office of a figurehead. The courts, by design do not impact on situations until decisions and made and actions taken. Using the Constitutional model, President Obama recognized the critical nature of the oil leak crises, the possibility that the company might avoid their responsibility either through bankruptcy or simply dragging their feet forever. He USED HIS INFLUENCE to obtain a decent outcome. BP did not have to comply. But they did!!! They agreed to the escrow. There is no court in the world that would even consider overturning such an action. If it just doesn't seem right to you to give the President some credit, then just say he was lucky to get this concession. I think it's a good example of doing his job to represent the people.

On your concern about oil exploration: The incredible irony of the BP crisis is that the deep-well drilling was done off our coast because it was the only place it would have been allowed! Over recent years, oil companies succeeded in lobbying Congress to water-down drilling regulations. Other countries maintain stronger regulations, but BP was able to drill here, and with less oversight. The awful truth is that if the federal government had kept the regulations we had, and developed stronger ones to address riskier deep-well drilling, the disaster would likely not have occurred. Certainly BP has put up the escrow partly because they know how unreasonably they, their partners and subcontractors acted, taking advantage of a lax situation, falling far short of drilling standards in effect elsewhere in the world. The authors of the effort to relax oil drilling standards were the huge oil companies whose lobbying efforts were so slick and convincing that it was tough for even well-intentioned congressmen to see through them and resist the tempting opportunity to put a few more folks to work in the Gulf.

OK, enough for tonight. You think you're wordy! More on domestic legislation later.
(the wedding was fabulous!)

[Guest]

BK - I've read your posts carefully and here's where I see things a little differently, and why.

First, I too think it is more appropriate for many life activities to be under local control. You might even say that in most places (except Bell, CA, for example), more can be done more efficiently and with better accountability. I'd even go so far as to make a new axiom I think you'll love: "The farther away things are managed from the local level, the greater the chance for error, inefficiency, and higher costs." But I have one major problem with this. Who is going to protect us from the systematically greedy, the individuals and organizations which have immense power, even to the point of being able to fend of control by anyone, including the federal government? Who is going to defend us against terrorism? Who is going to insure that the Constitution as well as local and state laws are upheld, applied and supported. The answer is the federal government, regardless of how frustrated I am with Washington bureaucracy. Look at Homeland Security for example. Their money has been spent by the truck load for almost 10 years. Even their own officials admit they have often been woefully inefficient. They keep trying new things that don't work very well, but cost a fortune. The story of airline security devices and procedures is almost a comedy - but it isn't funny. But the bottom line is that the rush to respond to 9/11, by thousands of additional employees, at a very high cost, is perhaps why we have not had a couple more 9/11s. It's scary to read of all the plots which get exposed before they unfold in tragedy. I don't believe these stories are cooked up to make us think Homeland Security is just peachy and deserves even more money.
So, with some regret that things don't work better, I am willing to pay the price of living in this incredibly complex America. Our prosperous, free lifestyle makes us the target of every fringe group and half the nations of the world. It will continue to cost a lot to defend ourselves.
Take another example. I hate war more than anything else. I have seldom seen it as productive in any way, while always obscenely costly, especially in peoples lives. In my book, and many historians now agree - perhaps the worst decision ever made by a US President was to invade Iraq. And there is a voice in my head that yells every day: "Get out of Afghanistan NOW". But I know what will happen if we do not accomplish the bulk of our objectives there, as well as in Pakistan. Several million Afghani supporters will be executed, and terrorist forces will achieve an unprecedented legitimacy and power boost. We will lose, short and long term and the future costs of defeat will skyrocket. Regrettably, we simply cannot deal with any of this without a powerful national government and armed force.

I do not let costs determine my political orientation. I've resisted condemning a particular administration or Congress just because of a tax or cost which affected me. I try to hang onto the long view. As a lower middle class kid who's father struggled to put food on the table for seven kids by running a marginal small business, I learned important things by cleaning bathrooms and carrying steel bars from the age of 10. My wife and I lived on a $45 weekly take home check in the summer of 1968 while we looked for teaching jobs. We've worked 40 years to graduate to the full-fledged middle class! Throughout this whole time, the costs imposed on me by ALL of the governments which tax me have only marginally affected my life, despite how conservatives scream that this or that new law will destroy us financially. For me it's probably only been the difference between a Chevy and a fancy Buick. When I think of the enormous cost of keeping this country afloat I am amazed at our stability. Almost every TV person I know admits the same thing: our lifestyle has remained rather stable in recent years. We were not even ruined by the recession, (I'll get to that when I comment about your views on domestic policy), even if we did lose some paper wealth. I can think of two exceptions, both because of health care costs, both who rejoiced the day the health care reform legislation passed. So, my conclusion is that we have the ability to defend our nation without collapsing from within. And regardless of mistakes made by dumb or selfish politicians, we hardly notice the affect, save that awful loss of life.

So, to summarize, I believe we need a powerful federal government, capable of swift and effective response, WHEN NEEDED.

Enough philosophy. Let me apply this to your opinion of the BP escrow case. I'm afraid I disagree that the President's forceful insistence that BP set aside a specific escrow to repair the disaster was either illegal or premature. The Constitution characterizes the role of the President as an initiator, proposer, leader, etc ., with the understanding that this leadership will provide the basis for legislation, where necessary. There are Presidential powers, it is not merely the office of a figurehead. The courts, by design do not impact on situations until decisions and made and actions taken. Using the Constitutional model, President Obama recognized the critical nature of the oil leak crises, the possibility that the company might avoid their responsibility either through bankruptcy or simply dragging their feet forever. He USED HIS INFLUENCE to obtain a decent outcome. BP did not have to comply. But they did!!! They agreed to the escrow. There is no court in the world that would even consider overturning such an action. If it just doesn't seem right to you to give the President some credit, then just say he was lucky to get this concession. I think it's a good example of doing his job to represent the people.

On your concern about oil exploration: The incredible irony of the BP crisis is that the deep-well drilling was done off our coast because it was the only place it would have been allowed! Over recent years, oil companies succeeded in lobbying Congress to water-down drilling regulations. Other countries maintain stronger regulations, but BP was able to drill here, and with less oversight. The awful truth is that if the federal government had kept the regulations we had, and developed stronger ones to address riskier deep-well drilling, the disaster would likely not have occurred. Certainly BP has put up the escrow partly because they know how unreasonably they, their partners and subcontractors acted, taking advantage of a lax situation, falling far short of drilling standards in effect elsewhere in the world. The authors of the effort to relax oil drilling standards were the huge oil companies whose lobbying efforts were so slick and convincing that it was tough for even well-intentioned congressmen to see through them and resist the tempting opportunity to put a few more folks to work in the Gulf.

OK, enough for tonight. You think you're wordy! More on domestic legislation later.
(the wedding was fabulous!)

Hey congratulations to your relatives with the wedding and marriage. Glad to hear you had fun. Good memories. That's what life is all about.

I take it you are/were a school teacher. So, maybe you'll appreciate a request I am going to make of you. I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. I honestly enjoyed our exhanges.

Now, I'd like to ask you to do me a favor and explain, in your own words, the three branches of federal government in the US and their roles according to the US Constitution. Explain, also in your own words, which of these branches, Constitutionally, is the most powerful.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

[Guest]

Hey congratulations to your relatives with the wedding and marriage. Glad to hear you had fun. Good memories. That's what life is all about.

I take it you are/were a school teacher. So, maybe you'll appreciate a request I am going to make of you. I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability. I honestly enjoyed our exhanges.

Now, I'd like to ask you to do me a favor and explain, in your own words, the three branches of federal government in the US and their roles according to the US Constitution. Explain, also in your own words, which of these branches, Constitutionally, is the most powerful.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.


I'm still waiting on a reply...

[Guest]

BK - immediately following your August 8th post I received a that post via email through the Talk Host of TOTV before I saw it in this thread. I have no idea why this happened, but I replied the same day to that email which I thought would go to you. It apparently did not.

this is what I sent you:

"BK - In fact I taught the US Constitution for some years. I'm not sure what you are driving at with your questions about it. I have made a comment or two about recent actions of the the executive and judicial branches. President Obama's actions to date are consistent with the power to "recommend" written in the original document. With respect to the judiciary, they simply hear cases of matters which have already occurred, as per my reference replying to the BP matter.
No branch is more powerful than another, indeed the separation of powers was sheer genius at work. Historically one branch or another has temporarily been somewhat more dominant, but only for a brief period. This has a lot to do with the longevity of our government.

I intended to answer your question and make further comments about finance regulation legislation, but I'll save that for the sometime tomorrow or Tues."

Not having seen anything from you until 8/15, and as we have left town to visit my daughter who delivered our first granddaughter on the 13th, I've not made any additional comments.

Finally, I've made some strong statements supporting the need for a strong central government. Knowing you do not generally share that view, I'd appreciate your comments on those specific points.

[Guest]

of a woman who needs to *wink* to get her point across? I think not. I'm not jealous, I'm ashamed that this country was the laughing stock of the civilized world when they saw who's McCain's running mate was. I might have voted for him? Well, probably not, but geez, couldn't his team have come up with anyone better than her?

Gotta say one thing, she's making some Judith Lieber bag out of that sow's ear. Brava, Brava. I can give credit where credit where credit is do...even if I still think she's the village idiot... fortunately in another village.

I was voteing for McCain until he took on Sarah. Thats all I got to say about that.

[Guest]

"However, I believe he(Thomas Jefferson) would support social security and the new health care reform because of the benefits provided for the average citizen".



He would be the first politician to ACTUALLY READ THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL TO DECIDE EXACTLY WHATS IN IT, WOULDNT THAT BE SOMETHING!

NANCY PELOSI SAID LETS PASS IT, THEN WE CAN ALL READ WHATS IN IT???
DUH

[Guest]

If you dont sign onto the health care policy, you can be jailed or fined,

CONTROL OF THE MASSES, RIGHT OUT OF THE ALINSKY PLAYBOOK

PELOSI
WHEN WE PASS THE HEALTH CARE BILL, THEN WE CAN FIND OUT WHATS IN IT

DONT FORGET TO PUT OUT THE TRASH NOV 2ND