Originally Posted by laurie91423

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

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 If any of those actions proves so unpopular with the electorate, they will be repealed in the future.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.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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.

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.

Originally Posted by laurie91423

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?

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

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!

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.

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.