"Don't make me do it, we really don't want to, but I will if I have to."
That strikes me as a reasonable standard. The one legitimate purpose of the state is to secure the rights of its citizens, and
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
To be clear, I am not calling for it, but there is a point where I wouldnt rule it out either.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
When comparing State government to Federal government, it looks to me like the Federal government has a much better track record of promoting the individual rights of minorities than the States. It is precisely because I am concerned about individual liberty that I favor Federal power over State power.
Originally Posted by lordbt
And those representatives have no limits on their power? Not sure why you would advocate the ability of the majority to tyrannize the minority. Does the concept of individual rights mean nothing to you?
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
When comparing State government to Federal government, it looks to me like the Federal government has a much better track record of promoting the individual rights of minorities than the States. It is precisely because I am concerned about individual liberty that I favor Federal power over State power.
But since you dont favor limits on federal power what you will wind up with is a federal government behaving as badly as some state governments have in the past. Rather than some citizens being deprived of their rights, all citizens will be deprived of their rights. Makes a lot of sense.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
I'm not in favor of some limitations and in favor of others. I certainly don't believe the Federal government should have the right to kidnap suspected terrorists or anyone else for that matter, torture of deny anyone thier civil liberties. I do believe it's important that government properly regulate and in some cases even compete with private industry to keep costs in check.
Originally Posted by lordbt
But since you dont favor limits on federal power what you will wind up with is a federal government behaving as badly as some state governments have in the past. Rather than some citizens being deprived of their rights, all citizens will be deprived of their rights. Makes a lot of sense.
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
I'm not in favor of some limitations and in favor of others. I certainly don't believe the Federal government should have the right to kidnap suspected terrorists or anyone else for that matter, torture of deny anyone thier civil liberties. I do believe it's important that government properly regulate and in some cases even compete with private industry to keep costs in check.
Why? Are your beliefs based upon any particular principles or do you just go by what feels right to you at the time?
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
"Don't make me do it, we really don't want to, but I will if I have to."
Originally Posted by lordbt
That strikes me as a reasonable standard. The one legitimate purpose of the state is to secure the rights of its citizens, and
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
To be clear, I am not calling for it, but there is a point where I wouldnt rule it out either.
When speaking of the possibility of revolution, I think those that have been there, have said it best:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
War, public unrest, must be the last resort. Peaceful protest, removing people from goverment, that are not acting in the peoples interest, and speaking out against actions(evident recently against former President Bush, and the Tea party protests). Allow people in our country a peaceful
way to speak out, vocalize their discontent.
On the road to revolution, one must allow society the chance to work through the problem. We have not yet begun to rally or protest, so while revolution can never be ruled out, we are not any where near that point.
Because we are what we elect. We elected the people that wish to distort the Constitution, we can replace them, if they go to far.
This is obvious in todays politicians. The Democrats have the ability to pass any bill they want. But they worry about the affects on their political future, if they sweep legislation through, and can't point to someone else for blame. Bi-partisan means you can blame the other party for the down side of a bill. Without it, one party takes the blame.(also takes all the credit, but they know perfection is rarely achieved, and there will be blame.)
Our system of goverment isn't perfect. We will elect people that don't have the countries best interest at heart. But we don't have to take up arms to remove them from power. We impeach them, and they go on the daytime talk shows, saying how unfair, we were to remove them from power. (Not naming names, or pointing fingers, Illinois Governor, cough cough.)
We need to push the people to pay attention to politics, not just at election time, but between elections. So people aren't swayed by eligant words, and catch phrases, and mudslinging. Informed voters are much better for the country, then just someone that is annoyed to have to find time to vote, or make a point to vote for anyone else.
This is where our revolution must start. Corruption breeds from peoples
lack of concern for their goverment. If people don't monitor their goverment, their goverment will run rampant.
Disclaimer:except where noted(illinois), this critisism is not liimited to either party. Both parties have corruption, I also believe both parties have good people working for the people. The voters should know which ones theirs are, not just guess at the election booth.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,
and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you didn't think you could do before.
R. Emanuel COS
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
Originally Posted by ArnautDaniel To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It takes a certain naivete to take a politician at their word....
"Remember laws are our friends, its the lawyers we have to look out for."
the three stooges, Political jokes aren't as funny after they're elected. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A.I am nobody
B.nobody is perfect
A=b&B=c, so A=C
C. I am perfect To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Severin Rheinfelser, SCA(period 1300-1350)
First Equestrian Champion of the Flaming Gyphon 2009 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On steed Maximillion. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Islam is not the problem, blind faith is.
Christians need to cast their nets in the sea of despair, not in the aquarium of church-----come, I will make you fishers of men.
What can I say, the political nuts are running the insane asylum. They hate the founding fathers and are useless!
__________________ Sola Scriptura is Eternal Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (October 11, 1798). Roe vs. Wade - 45 million **Proverbs 6:16-17 - states that there are seven things that are an abomination to the Lord; one of them is the shedding of innocentblood. The B.O. Must Go! Huckabee in 2012
1. I agree with the current interpretation of the constitution, which allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare.
2. I believe in the rule of law. Government doesn't get to break the law with regard to kidnaping, torture, ect... just because it claims to be protecting me.
Originally Posted by lordbt
Why? Are your beliefs based upon any particular principles or do you just go by what feels right to you at the time?
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
), this critisism is not liimited to either party. Both parties have corruption, I also believe both parties have good people working for the people. The voters should know which ones theirs are, not just guess at the election booth. 
Linear Mode
