PDA

View Full Version : Why can't we get good people in office?



Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 03:19 PM
Simple, the game is rigged to screw the little guy.

Wolf packs will chase out other wolves so they don't have competition.

If it is anything politicians hate it is that dirty set of words - Honest Competition.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pu6cT6ICQQ

Alyosha
09-27-2013, 03:42 PM
Its why we have to start local and then go 10th Amendment on their asses. It's too late to think about Washington.

Peter1469
09-27-2013, 04:00 PM
The primary system is a big part of the problem.

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 04:00 PM
Corrupt two party majority system?

nic34
09-27-2013, 04:05 PM
Get the money out...

http://getmoneyout.com/about/



". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010



https://movetoamend.org/

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 04:14 PM
It's already illegal for Corporations to donate directly to campaigns and politicians...

nic34
09-27-2013, 04:23 PM
It's already illegal for Corporations to donate directly to campaigns and politicians...

Read up on the Citizens United case:

United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 04:34 PM
Read up on the Citizens United case:

United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

It's easier to understand things if you read more than just the first sentence. The Citizens United decision only allows Corporations and Unions to spend unlimited funds for independent expenditures. The Supreme Court granted Corporations the right, not to donate to campaigns or candidates, but the right to spend any amount it wants for support of a candidate or against a candidate. That's what independent expenditures are...

nic34
09-27-2013, 04:37 PM
That's what political PACs are for.... come on, you're not that naive...

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 04:41 PM
That's what political PACs are for.... come on, you're not that naive...

PACs cannot accept Union or Corporate money. Only Super PACs can accept Corporate or Union money. And Super PACs cannot spend money or give money directly to candidates. It's allowed to accept money from Unions and Corporations because it only spends money on its own.

Try again.

KC
09-27-2013, 04:43 PM
Part of the problem is the money, yes. But there are inherent flaws with our system of government that exist regardless. De Tocqueville understood in the 1830s that America would not elect good men to office. Nothing much has changed.

nic34
09-27-2013, 05:03 PM
PACs cannot accept Union or Corporate money. Only Super PACs can accept Corporate or Union money. And Super PACs cannot spend money or give money directly to candidates. It's allowed to accept money from Unions and Corporations because it only spends money on its own.

Try again.

No need to try... corporations can give unlimited amounts to PACS and PACS run the ads..... there are no publicly supported elections now....

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

AmazonTania
09-27-2013, 05:09 PM
I don't understand the purpose of providing sources you are not going to read, especially if all you source does is corroborate what I said...

Also, all political contributions above a certain amount are publicly disclosed with the purpose of funds allocated attached, by law.

jillian
09-27-2013, 05:16 PM
Its why we have to start local and then go 10th Amendment on their asses. It's too late to think about Washington.

which has nothing to do with how we elect our representatives.

jillian
09-27-2013, 05:19 PM
Part of the problem is the money, yes. But there are inherent flaws with our system of government that exist regardless. De Tocqueville understood in the 1830s that America would not elect good men to office. Nothing much has changed.

the money is the largest problem. that causes people to do stupid things to garner donations or causes them to be beholden to corporatists because they need the bucks for their election campaign... which starts again as soon as they get into office and run for re-election or, in cruz's place, think they should be presient.

another problem is the 24 hour news cycle. and great men aren't going to run for office when you have the press following them to see if they've cheated on their wives... or they did drugs in college... or some lunatic is going to pretend they weren't born here... or they have to go extreme to win the primary and can't get back to middle ground when they run in the general election.

worse... you're not going to get great people when they vote the way they believe and are (left/right --- fill in the blanks) most of the time but get primaried from the(left/right --- fill in the blanks) by loony toons.... which runs great men out of office in favor of wingers.

nic34
09-27-2013, 05:37 PM
and great men aren't going to run for office when you have the press following them to see if they've cheated on their wives... or they did drugs in college... or some lunatic is going to pretend they weren't born here... or they have to go extreme to win the primary and can't get back to middle ground when they run in the general election.



....dang if that don't sound jus like some good ol' boys we know from somewhere....:grin:

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 05:40 PM
Its why we have to start local and then go 10th Amendment on their asses. It's too late to think about Washington.

I think that you are making a lot of sense!

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 05:41 PM
Get the money out...

http://getmoneyout.com/about/


". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010



https://movetoamend.org/





You can't get the corporations out, unless you get the Unions out too, Citizens United was about offsetting the billions pumped into the system by big labor!

jillian
09-27-2013, 05:55 PM
I think that you are making a lot of sense!

except it has nothing to do with anything

i'm sorry you hate our constitution.

jillian
09-27-2013, 06:03 PM
....dang if that don't sound jus like some good ol' boys we know from somewhere....:grin:


it does...and it's a pity. i'd have voted for mccain in 2000 had he been the nominee (which got upended by bush's racist push poll) then comes 2008 and he picks palin and goes anti-choice and anti- well, almost everything he ever believed.

Paperback Writer
09-27-2013, 06:13 PM
PACs cannot accept Union or Corporate money. Only Super PACs can accept Corporate or Union money. And Super PACs cannot spend money or give money directly to candidates. It's allowed to accept money from Unions and Corporations because it only spends money on its own.

Try again.

That's just quibbling. So they can't give it to a candidate. They can spend unlimited amounts of money on commercials that direct people towards them.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 06:37 PM
Good people don't go into politics. Narcissists do. Good people work in charities. Look for them there.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 07:02 PM
except it has nothing to do with anything

i'm sorry you hate our constitution.

I actually need you to send me a picture so I can enter you into the SWWIA contest I thin you are a shoe in!

Here is the 10th Amendment

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/what-if-congress-doesnt-increase-the-debt-limit-the-risks-of-default/

Liberals are in total denial just like they were in Greece, but the federal government at this current pace is going to become insolvent within a decade, somewhere between 22 and 24 trillion in debt!

At this point it will have to cut it's yearly spending by about 35% maybe even 40%

The point is that you need to start concentrating efforts to get very good and qualified people in at the local and state level, because that is where most of the services will come from, There will be No dept of education, FDA Homeland Security, Dept of Energy, these will all be going. SS will most likely be cut Welfare and medical service for the poor will go back to the states.

Many states passed balanced budget reforms back in the 80's and thus don't have the debt that the federal government has. So because you are well uninformed about what the 10th amendment means you did not understand her comment. Suffices that eh federal government never had the constitutional right to take from the states will be returned to the states, and if we don't have really good people in place it will be a disaster

So please do put words in my mouth, it is not appreciated, especially from one that has got an F en clue about what the constitution means.

jillian
09-27-2013, 07:04 PM
i think maybe you should stick to things you know.

i know exactly what the 10th says...

as for your contest... if its something you talk about, i'm sure its nasty and vile.

jillian
09-27-2013, 07:05 PM
Good people don't go into politics. Narcissists do. Good people work in charities. Look for them there.

there used to be people who wanted to give something back to society.

but seriously, why would anyone waste their time when you get imbeciles whose only role is to obstruct and not do anything that benefits anyone but themselves?

KC
09-27-2013, 07:40 PM
there used to be people who wanted to give something back to society.

but seriously, why would anyone waste their time when you get imbeciles whose only role is to obstruct and not do anything that benefits anyone but themselves?

Politics isn't about "giving back to society," it's about taking away from society.

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 07:51 PM
Politics isn't about "giving back to society," it's about taking away from society.

Narcissists go into politics. People who just want to help work at charities or enlist. People who want praise become politicians.

jillian
09-27-2013, 07:54 PM
Politics isn't about "giving back to society," it's about taking away from society.


i know that's what the government haters like to say. and it's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. but i saw some great politicians

and remember that the person who told you the scariest words were "i'm from the government and i'm here to help" was fos because he was in the government (and raised the debt ceiling 18 times).

my point... they use that to advance an agenda.

i know while i was growing up we had two great senators...

and at least one great mayor

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 07:59 PM
i know that's what the government haters like to say. and it's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. but i saw some great politicians

and remember that the person who told you the scariest words were "i'm from the government and i'm here to help" was fos because he was in the government (and raised the debt ceiling 18 times).

my point... they use that to advance an agenda.

i know while i was growing up we had two great senators...

and at least one great mayor

You are espousing the virtues of the minority.

When did nations take on the characteristics of the minority as a whole?

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:00 PM
I like Rand Paul and Justin Amash a lot, but if someone said that they could lift the entire city of DC off the ground and remove it to another planet, I'd say: Bye Rand!

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 08:02 PM
I like Rand Paul and Justin Amash a lot, but if someone said that they could lift the entire city of DC off the ground and remove it to another planet, I'd say: Bye Rand!

Given the cancerous beings they would take with them, I would mourn, but I'd rejoice all the same.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:02 PM
You are espousing the virtues of the minority.

When did nations take on the characteristics of the minority as a whole?

not really. it's that i don't believe in hiring people who hate government to run government.

it's like the metropolitan museum hiring a curator who hates art

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 08:04 PM
not really. it's that i don't believe in hiring people who hate government to run government.

it's like the metropolitan museum hiring a curator who hates art

The two analogies are not compatible.

We actually need people who wish to prune this monster that has been created by those who love it - to keep it from doing us harm.

Even gardeners who love their trees have to prune them when they get too wild. <<< That one works here.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:08 PM
The two analogies are not compatible.

We actually need people who wish to prune this monster that has been created by those who love it - to keep it from doing us harm.

Even gardeners who love their trees have to prune them when they get too wild. <<< That one works here.

they're not pruning.. they're killing.

i disagree. no one who hates government should run it.

(i'm not talking about wanting to get rid of waste.. i'm talking about people who resent government... )

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:12 PM
they're not pruning.. they're killing.

i disagree. no one who hates government should run it.

(i'm not talking about wanting to get rid of waste.. i'm talking about people who resent government... )

Well, running government is not like being a doctor. Government has an absolute monopoly on force so you want someone who is distrustful of feeding the beast to be in it, versus someone who wants​ it and will be corrupted by it.

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 08:16 PM
they're not pruning.. they're killing.

i disagree. no one who hates government should run it.

(i'm not talking about wanting to get rid of waste.. i'm talking about people who resent government... )

There are times when rebuilding from scratch is the only option. We are past that - given the things that are currently set in motion. Now there are some who anxiously want to save this dying cow from its rightful fate - and they are foolish.

Then there are some who simple watch and wait for it to fall down so they can spring into action and do it right the next time. They won't try to tear it down, but they won't let themselves be fleeced nor abused. These types are much better. But even in this camp, there are idiots.

Just wait. You'll live to see millions of your countrymen die because of this charade that has been playing for a hundred plus years now.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:19 PM
There are times when rebuilding from scratch is the only option. We are past that - given the things that are currently set in motion. Now there are some who anxiously want to save this dying cow from its rightful fate - and they are foolish.

Then there are some who simple watch and wait for it to fall down so they can spring into action and do it right the next time. They won't try to tear it down, but they won't let themselves be fleeced nor abused. These types are much better. But even in this camp, there are idiots.

Just wait. You'll live to see millions of your countrymen die because of this charade that has been playing for a hundred plus years now.

but i don't think that's the option. i think it's irrational.

what things are "currently set in motion"? it seems bizarre to me. i'm sorry. the rightwing hysteria makes no sense to me.

to me, if the hysterics get out of the way, things can get better.

are there things that we could change? yes. but i doubt you and i would want to change the same things.

i like the touch about millions dying, though. very dramatic. quite oratorical.

Mister D
09-27-2013, 08:22 PM
but i don't think that's the option. i think it's irrational.

what things are "currently set in motion"? it seems bizarre to me. i'm sorry. the rightwing hysteria makes no sense to me.

to me, if the hysterics get out of the way, things can get better.

are there things that we could change? yes. but i doubt you and i would want to change the same things.

i like the touch about millions dying, though. very dramatic. quite oratorical.

You mean hysterics and drama like "misogyny!" and " humiliate women"!? That kind of crazed rhetoric? Yes, very dramatic. Yes, quite oratorical. Yes, it does impede discussion.

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 08:26 PM
but i don't think that's the option. i think it's irrational.

It is the only logical outcome give the variables at hand. Math is often the idealist's friend.



what things are "currently set in motion"? it seems bizarre to me. i'm sorry. the rightwing hysteria makes no sense to me.

If I could point out only a few? Federal Reserve and its Practicing of the Goldsmith's Tale in the modern era, the creation of the "US Citizen", and the utter rejection of God by the masses.



to me, if the hysterics get out of the way, things can get better.

are there things that we could change? yes. but i doubt you and i would want to change the same things.


I agree, with all listed points. However, calling truth hysteria is where some of the problem is. Many do not want to pay the debt that has been incurred. Natural Law cannot be avoided. All debts are reconciled.



i like the touch about millions dying, though. very dramatic. quite oratorical.

While you might see adorable theater, I see a hideous truth and wish it weren't so. Unlike the more benevolent, I will be the guy who says -

"I told you so."

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:29 PM
jillian

sometimes it takes being in the military to see the government for what it really is. Sometimes it takes being in special operations to see how dangerous.

I am not the same red, white, and blue shitting Mississippi boy that I was. I've seen a lot of bullshit since I joined and when I got back, too. I just don't believe the lies and I don't believe this greater good crap.

Washington is owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations. I don't care what party. They are owned.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:32 PM
i think maybe you should stick to things you know.

i know exactly what the 10th says...

as for your contest... if its something you talk about, i'm sure its nasty and vile.

well then if you know what the constitution says why do you have a problem with states rights?

If you continue to hid your intelligence people will continue to question it

Not nasty or vile, Insulting???? Maybe?

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:34 PM
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

sometimes it takes being in the military to see the government for what it really is. Sometimes it takes being in special operations to see how dangerous.

I am not the same red, white, and blue shitting Mississippi boy that I was. I've seen a lot of bullshit since I joined and when I got back, too. I just don't believe the lies and I don't believe this greater good crap.

Washington is owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations. I don't care what party. They are owned.

i am all for getting the money out of politics. i think i said that in my first post on this thread. so i agree 1000%

and the congress to lobbyist track is not serving us well.

but that doesn't mean we should hate government, imo. it means we should make better the things that need fixing. being destructive only serves the purposes of the people who wish to use that type of destructiveness to their own benefit

Cthulhu
09-27-2013, 08:34 PM
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

sometimes it takes being in the military to see the government for what it really is. Sometimes it takes being in special operations to see how dangerous.

I am not the same red, white, and blue shitting Mississippi boy that I was. I've seen a lot of bullshit since I joined and when I got back, too. I just don't believe the lies and I don't believe this greater good crap.

Washington is owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations. I don't care what party. They are owned.

And the receipt for this transaction may as well be the stock exchange.

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:35 PM
not really. it's that i don't believe in hiring people who hate government to run government.

it's like the metropolitan museum hiring a curator who hates art

I thought that you said that you understood the constitution. What part of limited government that the founders wanted are you having trouble with today?

The government has gotten so large it can't get out of it's own way!

Codename Section
09-27-2013, 08:36 PM
i am all for getting the money out of politics. i think i said that in my first post on this thread. so i agree 1000%

and the congress to lobbyist track is not serving us well.

but that doesn't mean we should hate government, imo. it means we should make better the things that need fixing. being destructive only serves the purposes of the people who wish to use that type of destructiveness to their own benefit

You know the S&G story from the Hebrew Bible? How God said he'd save the city if they could find just like 10 people, but they could only come up with 7--that's how I feel right now about government.

It's mostly rotten and not worthy of saving.

So I'd focus on building a better more hands on state government and then nullify federal powers because, its not like the UN is going to let the US pull another Lincoln if people want more autonomy.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:44 PM
I thought that you said that you understood the constitution. What part of limited government that the founders wanted are you having trouble with today?

The government has gotten so large it can't get out of it's own way!


are you as stupid and obnoxious as you sound?

where does it say "limited government" in the constitution?

it says the government should act for the "general welfare" and the

there is nothing about "limited" government except government wasn't supposed to interfere with things as personal as what you do in your bedroom, what religion you practice and what you do with your body.

in those instances, you're all for invasive in your face, tell everyone what to do government.

but please, tell me how the commerce clause and the caselaw construing it sets up a system of "small government".

patrickt
09-27-2013, 08:47 PM
A friend of mine lost an arm and a leg in a industrial accident. A local attorney represented him and gt an excellent settlement. The attorney took none of the money. When challenged by other attorneys he said he had enough money, two arms, and two legs. He was also assigned by the court to recover millions stolen by a fraud. It took him 7 years but he recovered all of the money and took nothing.

I think he is a good man. He was elected as a representative to Washington. After four turns he came home and said it was hopeless.

I do understand Jillian and Nic whining about money. The rules should be that liberals get all the money they want from any source they want, including foreign countries, but Republicans can only raise money with garage sales.

jillian
09-27-2013, 08:51 PM
You know the S&G story from the Hebrew Bible? How God said he'd save the city if they could find just like 10 people, but they could only come up with 7--that's how I feel right now about government.

It's mostly rotten and not worthy of saving.

So I'd focus on building a better more hands on state government and then nullify federal powers because, its not like the UN is going to let the US pull another Lincoln if people want more autonomy.

i understand what you're saying. but our constitution wasn't established to support a weak federal government and strong state governments. if it were, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and i don't much trust a lot of the state governments in this country they do things like force government troops to march black kids into schools. they do things like vote for laws that take away a woman's dominion over her own body.

but for loving v virginia, they use to do things like prohibit inter-racial marriage

i'll take the federal government over the states any day. and, ultimately, it's the things i just mentioned that make many people hate the federal government rather than appreciate it... expecially the courts.

so they distort what the constitution is. try to defund the federal government so it can't function... yell socialism if government does something for the general welfare of society...

zelmo1234
09-27-2013, 08:56 PM
are you as stupid and obnoxious as you sound?

where does it say "limited government" in the constitution?

it says the government should act for the "general welfare" and the

there is nothing about "limited" government except government wasn't supposed to interfere with things as personal as what you do in your bedroom, what religion you practice and what you do with your body.

in those instances, you're all for invasive in your face, tell everyone what to do government.

but please, tell me how the commerce clause and the caselaw construing it sets up a system of "small government".

Well the contest is for the stupidest white women in American and I think that you are the front runner.

So lets look at that 10 th amendment one more time, and I will try and type slow so you can understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Now I will agree that the commerce clause is the one of the most abused parts of the constitution? But lets look at that too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

So that means they can regulate between the states. These people are talking about building self sustaining communities? And building strong State governments? So if they life within a state, and they don't participate in intrastate commerce?

Does the constitution give the federal government the power to regulate them?

And last apparently you went to liberal history classes and did not learn what the founding fathers were concerned about.

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/the-founders-believed-in-limited-government

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Quotes_from_founding_fathers_regarding_limited_gov ernment

Now I know that you are a liberal and have spoken and we are to believe that because you said it that makes it true, but the problem is I don't even think you can tell when you are lying any more.

If you want the government to control everything for you great, but many of us don't and believe in the constitution as the founders intended it to be

Peter1469
09-27-2013, 09:38 PM
i understand what you're saying. but our constitution wasn't established to support a weak federal government and strong state governments. if it were, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and i don't much trust a lot of the state governments in this country they do things like force government troops to march black kids into schools. they do things like vote for laws that take away a woman's dominion over her own body.

but for loving v virginia, they use to do things like prohibit inter-racial marriage

i'll take the federal government over the states any day. and, ultimately, it's the things i just mentioned that make many people hate the federal government rather than appreciate it... expecially the courts.

so they distort what the constitution is. try to defund the federal government so it can't function... yell socialism if government does something for the general welfare of society...

The Constitution was established to make the federal government sovereign in certain matters that required a strong federal position. And to let the states be sovereign in the majority of issues that were only of local concern.

jillian
09-28-2013, 05:28 AM
The Constitution was established to make the federal government sovereign in certain matters that required a strong federal position. And to let the states be sovereign in the majority of issues that were only of local concern.

the federal government is also to assure that the states don't protect fewer rights than the federal constitution and the interpretive caselaw

i'll also point out that the commerce clause has been very broadly construed over the past couple of hundred years... until the roberts court which pulled back on that clause for the first time. i, obviously, think he was wrong and think he went against 200 years of precedent.

Peter1469
09-28-2013, 08:13 AM
the federal government is also to assure that the states don't protect fewer rights than the federal constitution and the interpretive caselaw

i'll also point out that the commerce clause has been very broadly construed over the past couple of hundred years... until the roberts court which pulled back on that clause for the first time. i, obviously, think he was wrong and think he went against 200 years of precedent.

Not really. It was narrowly interpreted until 1937 after FDR tried to stack the Court. And the first push back on this broad interpretation was in US v. Lopez.


Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that, by its terms, has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. ___.

patrickt
09-28-2013, 08:24 AM
I think there are jobs that can rot good, honest, decent people. Politics is one of them.

Codename Section
09-28-2013, 08:32 AM
the federal government is also to assure that the states don't protect fewer rights than the federal constitution and the interpretive caselaw

Who says? :)

Captain Obvious
09-28-2013, 09:50 AM
Because we don't have good people in rank and file overall.

Cthulhu
09-28-2013, 09:53 AM
Because we don't have good people in rank and file overall.

To a degree that is true.

Captain Obvious
09-28-2013, 10:19 AM
To a degree that is true.

It's absolutely true. As a society, collectively we've become fat and happy. We're more concerned with our I-pads and SUV's and kids soccer games than sociopolitical issues. It's why we keep electing the same dicks into office year after year, it's why there is a tremendous political polarization among those who are somewhat interested in politics (and it's not because of political ideology, it's because we have a segment of especially dull people who follow cook book politics and would rather bicker and heckle than consider and discuss), it's why there is low voter turnout, no groundswell of opposition against those who commit political malpractice on a regular basis - nobody really collectively gives a fuck.

"Fuck it, as long as I can watch football on Sunday and eat a steak every now and then, why should I give a shit?"

Cthulhu
09-28-2013, 10:24 AM
It's absolutely true. As a society, collectively we've become fat and happy. We're more concerned with our I-pads and SUV's and kids soccer games than sociopolitical issues. It's why we keep electing the same dicks into office year after year, it's why there is a tremendous political polarization among those who are somewhat interested in politics (and it's not because of political ideology, it's because we have a segment of especially dull people who follow cook book politics and would rather bicker and heckle than consider and discuss), it's why there is low voter turnout, no groundswell of opposition against those who commit political malpractice on a regular basis - nobody really collectively gives a fuck.

"Fuck it, as long as I can watch football on Sunday and eat a steak every now and then, why should I give a shit?"

I would say that it is not as absolute as you think, but the majority is becoming the problem. There is no doubt about it. Those do do care, altruistic at heart, are in very short supply.

Mister D
09-28-2013, 10:42 AM
It's absolutely true. As a society, collectively we've become fat and happy. We're more concerned with our I-pads and SUV's and kids soccer games than sociopolitical issues. It's why we keep electing the same dicks into office year after year, it's why there is a tremendous political polarization among those who are somewhat interested in politics (and it's not because of political ideology, it's because we have a segment of especially dull people who follow cook book politics and would rather bicker and heckle than consider and discuss), it's why there is low voter turnout, no groundswell of opposition against those who commit political malpractice on a regular basis - nobody really collectively gives a fuck.

"Fuck it, as long as I can watch football on Sunday and eat a steak every now and then, why should I give a shit?"

Well said.

KC
09-28-2013, 11:59 AM
i know that's what the government haters like to say. and it's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. but i saw some great politicians

and remember that the person who told you the scariest words were "i'm from the government and i'm here to help" was fos because he was in the government (and raised the debt ceiling 18 times).

my point... they use that to advance an agenda.

i know while i was growing up we had two great senators...

and at least one great mayor

There have been a few good national politicians since the founding of the republic, it's just a rare thing. I always admired Thaddeus Stevens.

Indeed, there are many good local politicians. The less there is to gain from an office, the better characters you will find.

KC
09-28-2013, 12:09 PM
I think there are jobs that can rot good, honest, decent people. Politics is one of them.

Because you are required to be dishonest in order to succeed in democracy.

Dr. Who
09-28-2013, 12:12 PM
Because you are required to be dishonest in order to succeed in democracy.Or forced to play the game or get out.

AmazonTania
09-28-2013, 03:38 PM
It's absolutely true. As a society, collectively we've become fat and happy. We're more concerned with our I-pads and SUV's and kids soccer games than sociopolitical issues. It's why we keep electing the same dicks into office year after year, it's why there is a tremendous political polarization among those who are somewhat interested in politics (and it's not because of political ideology, it's because we have a segment of especially dull people who follow cook book politics and would rather bicker and heckle than consider and discuss), it's why there is low voter turnout, no groundswell of opposition against those who commit political malpractice on a regular basis - nobody really collectively gives a fuck.

"Fuck it, as long as I can watch football on Sunday and eat a steak every now and then, why should I give a shit?"

As I've already explained in a different post, it's perfectly rational for individuals to be ignorant about politics.

I don't like politics at all. I really only pay attention because it effects how I do my job. Otherwise, I can care less.

Chris
09-28-2013, 04:05 PM
are you as stupid and obnoxious as you sound?

where does it say "limited government" in the constitution?

it says the government should act for the "general welfare" and the

there is nothing about "limited" government except government wasn't supposed to interfere with things as personal as what you do in your bedroom, what religion you practice and what you do with your body.

in those instances, you're all for invasive in your face, tell everyone what to do government.

but please, tell me how the commerce clause and the caselaw construing it sets up a system of "small government".



Despite your inflammatory name calling, it doesn't say limited but it limits government to certain enumerated power granted it by the people. That's the limitation.



it says the government should act for the "general welfare" and the

Yes, in the sense it can act only for the good of all, not for the good of some at the expense of others, and that still limited to enumerated powers.

Chris
09-28-2013, 04:08 PM
i understand what you're saying. but our constitution wasn't established to support a weak federal government and strong state governments. if it were, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and i don't much trust a lot of the state governments in this country they do things like force government troops to march black kids into schools. they do things like vote for laws that take away a woman's dominion over her own body.

but for loving v virginia, they use to do things like prohibit inter-racial marriage

i'll take the federal government over the states any day. and, ultimately, it's the things i just mentioned that make many people hate the federal government rather than appreciate it... expecially the courts.

so they distort what the constitution is. try to defund the federal government so it can't function... yell socialism if government does something for the general welfare of society...




our constitution wasn't established to support a weak federal government and strong state governments. if it were, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

Oh but it was. The problem is with liberal progressives like yourself taking government outside its constitutional bounds with your useless living document interpretations.

Chris
09-28-2013, 04:10 PM
the federal government is also to assure that the states don't protect fewer rights than the federal constitution and the interpretive caselaw

i'll also point out that the commerce clause has been very broadly construed over the past couple of hundred years... until the roberts court which pulled back on that clause for the first time. i, obviously, think he was wrong and think he went against 200 years of precedent.




the federal government is also to assure that the states don't protect fewer rights than the federal constitution and the interpretive caselaw

You're funny, you demand others to show where the Constitution states "limited" but argue caselaw interpretations not in the Constitution.

Only those amendments that have been incorporated can be forced on the states. No more.

Chris
09-28-2013, 04:12 PM
It's absolutely true. As a society, collectively we've become fat and happy. We're more concerned with our I-pads and SUV's and kids soccer games than sociopolitical issues. It's why we keep electing the same dicks into office year after year, it's why there is a tremendous political polarization among those who are somewhat interested in politics (and it's not because of political ideology, it's because we have a segment of especially dull people who follow cook book politics and would rather bicker and heckle than consider and discuss), it's why there is low voter turnout, no groundswell of opposition against those who commit political malpractice on a regular basis - nobody really collectively gives a fuck.

"Fuck it, as long as I can watch football on Sunday and eat a steak every now and then, why should I give a shit?"



That and power corrupts.

Peter1469
09-28-2013, 04:44 PM
As I've already explained in a different post, it's perfectly rational for individuals to be ignorant about politics.

I don't like politics at all. I really only pay attention because it effects how I do my job. Otherwise, I can care less.

In your line of work, paying attention to politics, and geopolitics, is a must.