Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

‘Stale And Moss-Covered’ GOP, Meet Young Conservatism

March 18, 2013 by  

‘Stale And Moss-Covered’ GOP, Meet Young Conservatism
UPI
Senator Rand Paul was well-received by CPAC attendies.

If CPAC is any indication of the path some Republicans may attempt to take to victory in coming elections, it appears strong fiscal conservatism and limited government will be major parts of the plan.

There has been a great deal of talk lately among members of the GOP about the Party’s future in the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss in the Presidential election.

FOX News ignored failed Presidential candidate Romney’s CPAC speech on Friday, which could be summed up as an apology to the GOP.

“It is up to us to make sure that we learn from my mistakes, and from our mistakes, so that we can win the victories those people and this nation depend upon,” Romney said.

“I am sorry that I will not be your president — but I will be your co-worker and I will stand shoulder to shoulder alongside you,” he said later in the speech. “In the end, we will win just as we have won before, and for the same reason: because our cause is just and it is right.”

Noticeably absent from this year’s conference were moderate Republicans like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. And less-libertarian GOP members who did speak at the event were met with lukewarm response from audiences.

Such was the case with Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) social conservatism-laden attempt at a Ronald Reagan revival in a CPAC speech on Thursday.

“As soon as I’m done speaking, I’ll tell you what the criticism on the left is going to be,” Rubio said. “Number one, he drank too much water. Number two: that he didn’t offer any new ideas.

“And there’s the fallacy of it. We don’t need a new idea. There is an idea: the idea is called America, and it still works.”

Many headlines referencing CPAC late last week referenced a common observation about the political action conference: Young people showed up, and they had a definite favorite.

Capitalizing on his aptly-timed drone filibuster, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was well-received by CPAC attendees. Paul, who has been leading a public push toward a more libertarian GOP, said during one speech that it was time to do away with “stale and moss-covered” conservative lawmakers who turn off younger conservatives.

“They are the core though of the leave-me-alone coalition,” Paul said. “They doubt Social Security will be there for them, they worry about jobs and rent and money and student loans… They aren’t afraid of individual liberty. Ask the Facebook generation if we should put a kid in jail for the non-violent crime of drug use and you’ll hear a resounding ‘no.’ Ask the Facebook generation if they want to bail out too big to fail banks with their hard earned tax dollars and you’ll hear a ‘hell no.’”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “‘Stale And Moss-Covered’ GOP, Meet Young Conservatism”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    Don’t stop there Rand…..

    Ask them if they want to be mired in debt, from student loans, for
    a useless education and no prospect for employment?

    Ask them if they want to live in a country where infrastructure is collapsing,
    sanitation systems are breaking down, public utilities are privatized,
    and maintenance neglected to raise rates, where gas pipelines ( residential )
    explode because profits trump safety?

    Ask them if they want a border war with Mexico, because the drugs can’t be
    stopped coming in, and the guns aren’t stopped going out, drones are already
    in use and the bill keeps going up?

    Ask them if they want rail road monopolies, which they already have?

    Ask them if they want telecom monopolies, which they already have, increasing
    costs for snail speeds, scrooge data plans, delivered on a 3 by 5 screen, when
    the rest of the world makes us look like cave men?

    Ask them if they want an insurance industry where the main profit strategy
    is the “denial” of claims, because those covered can’t afford to wait,
    which is why they bought the insurance in the first place?

    Ask them if, every time they sign an “agreement” or “contract”, they
    want to be ambushed by the fine print, which removes their right to
    sue and forces them into arbitration, where everything is skewed
    against them, including the “location” where this arbitration will occur?

    Ask them if they want a tax code which allows major corporations
    to funnel all their profits off shore, continue to export jobs, and pay
    zero taxes while complaining the tax rates are too high, buy elections,
    pay millions for lobbyists and essentially corrupt or dupe, people
    like yourself into aiding and abetting them?

    Ask them how many more wars they want to fight for oil and greed,
    when green technologies, energy and food independence, are all
    that is required to restart this economy and keep it booming by providing
    jobs that CAN”T be exported……not to mention, real health care and
    real education?******

    Don’t stop……Rand……ask them!!!!!!!!

    Are we DONE here?

    ******** only a partial list

    • http://Backer Carol

      Galt, You have it right, now keep all these things for the GoP so they find out about everything you suggested. This is wonderful

    • Bob Friday

      Some of the sentiments that GALT stated are legitimate, but what he is talking about is crony capitalism. We no longer live in a free market. We have not seen a free market in our lifetimes. Ever since the banksters hijacked our country, we all have been enslaved by them to support their ambitions. The banksters backed both candidates in 1913 so they could jam through the 16th amendment to the constitution (not ratified legally), which was the second nail in the coffin for America, which was then followed by the Federal Reserve Act, the final nail in the coffin. Until we can repeal both travesties, we will never again be a free people. Stand with Rand.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Yeah RIGHT……….Stick with another Paul……meanwhile,

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

        How many years did daddy serve yet neglect to mention that two of the
        four jurisdictions available in the constitution are “missing”?

        Write and ask…….see if you get an answer?

        You didn’t lose the constitution in 1913, you lost it in 1938…..actually you
        gave it up at birth, and you have voluntarily given it up, every day since.

        You can take it back at anytime…..in fact YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK.

        No one else can do it for you, and that’s the cleverest part of their little
        scheme…….

  • rick

    It’s about time somebody stood up and called the GOP for what it is. PRO-OBAMA.
    The Republicans have just Carried Water for Obama since he got in the White House.
    The GOP NEVER NEVER NEVER ATTACKS ANYTHING EXCEPT ITS OWN MEMBERS.
    McCain and Graham should be drummed Out of the party. No election, No money, No nothing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/carol.backer.52 Carol Backer

      You are right too Rick..We need people like you and Gait..

    • jopa

      rick;Your last two lines make you a Republican for sure or a hypocrite.”THE GOP NEVER ATTACKS ANYTHING EXCEPT IT”S OWN MEMBERS”. Then you go on to attack McCain and Graham.

  • ibcamn

    New blood,that’s a good thing,get the old gop to think new!sometimes it takes a swift kick in the ass to get people moving!it all works for me!start standing up to obama and his henchmen!fight back with the same crap they throw at you!

  • jopa

    What was that CPAC supposed to be anyway.It looked as though a bunch of failed politicians were doing a failing job at comedy.There were no new ideas except for Rubio’s new idea being America.What the hell does that mean.Oh now I get it He comes from Communist Cuba and America is a new idea to him.Palin was up there slurping on slurpies putting the poundage on, made a couple of lame jokes and waddled off the stage.You go granny!! Then they had their mix of colors to show how diverse they were and the new GOP by having several, Blacks, Hispanics, might have been even an Asian but I didn’t watch it every day.What little dialogue there was, was no differant than before with the same message that they keep losing with.However that mess will save America by not being able to participate, we would be totally screwed if that Mutt Romney was in power.

  • David

    Maybe it is because I am getting old and have 7 grandkids, but I don’t want the Facebook crowd making decision for me. I have seen how they tune out everything and everyone when they are typing on their phones (which I still don’t see why a 13 year old needs a phone). They only think of themselves and live for today they can’t tell you what 8.25% of something is without using a calculator. These are not yet the mature minds we want making policy. And as long as I am on my soapbox what is with all these people who think that the only reason we go to war is so some company can get rich. Have we been in fights we maybe should have stayed out of…of course. Are there sometimes bigger things going on that you don’t get it, maybe. Would Hitler have just stopped taking over countries on his own if nobody had fought against him…I guess anything is possible. But, in this world we live in we do fight for oil and other resources along with for people. If it was just for oil we could have sucked out a bunch after we took Iraq, and just took it.”spoils of war and all”, nut we didn’t did we. We didn’t have to render aid to the enemies that were shooting at us but we did. The wars our boys (and I mean men) are asked to fight now are so ridiculous with all the rules of engagement. You have to be shot at first, can’t shoot back if they are shooting from a hospital or school…etc. Just think if this was back in WW1 and we carpet bomb them. That would level several city blocks. We don’t do that anymore we try at our very best to only take on the enemy and only the enemy that is shooting at us. They however are given a pass and can explode a car bomb in a busy city street with lots of innocent people men,women,children and there is no outcry of how wrong this is. How they just murdered 23 innocent people, it is not headlines all across the world. Other Arab countries should be outraged but no, it is buried in the paper on page 12 if it is in there at all and when there it is not taken as an outrageous thing. Now let one American soldier kill someone that was innocent by accident and it makes major headline news around the globe especially in the Arab states. In the Bible it says that you are either a friend to Israel or you are their enemy. And an enemy of Israel is an enemy of God.(not an exact quote) . So I feel (getting back on point) our Facebook crowd would throw Israel to the wolves and thereby, in my belief, make us an enemy of God. That is not where I want to be.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      You need to do some serious research…….start with this.

      Kill Anything That Moves
      The Real American War in Vietnam
      By Nick Turse
      (Metropolitan; 370 pages; $30)
      In early 1971, the New York Times Book Review splashed its cover with the question “Should We Have War Crimes Trials?” American perceptions of the war in Vietnam were at a sort of tipping point, and the military was nervous. A retired general and respected prosecutor at Nuremberg argued in the Times and on “The Dick Cavett Show” that Gen. William Westmoreland might be guilty of war crimes. “[O]ur army that now remains in Vietnam,” a colonel wrote at the time, “is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers … drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

      As Nick Turse tells it in his indispensable new history of the war, challenges to the military’s perceptions of the conflict, which it pretended to be winning every day for years, started with Seymour Hersh’s groundbreaking account of the My Lai massacre. American soldiers murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai in 1968, and after Hersh’s exposé, suddenly war crimes were a hot story. For a moment. But Turse insists that if the editors of Newsweek hadn’t “eviscerated” an article that described a much larger death toll in 1972, the wool wouldn’t still be pulled over Americans’ eyes.

      The problem, as described in Turse’s “Kill Anything That Moves,” is the tension between the “bad apples” argument – which sees atrocities in Vietnam as the exception – and the reality of the broader, official “American way of war.” Turse came to understand the latter after he stumbled onto documents of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group. The military created the group after the My Lai massacre to avoid again being caught flat-footed.

      The point, Turse found, was not to prevent war crimes but to contain the damage and stay, as the euphemism might go today, ahead of the PR problem. Finding the cache of internal documents, Turse halted his academic thesis work, and lit out in his car to spend the next several days photocopying these documents. He rounded this out with interviews with more than 100 veterans, alongside those of eyewitnesses and survivors of American atrocities in Vietnam. His verdict – more than a decade later – is damning and masterful.

      Without knowing its name, Americans understand what a free-fire zone is. Presidents George W. Bush and Obama have essentially made large swaths of Pakistan into them. As Turse recounts, the practice seems to have originated in Vietnam (though no doubt there are earlier precedents in, for instance, the American wars against Indians).

      A free-fire zone in Vietnam, as American soldiers understood it, was where all inhabitants were deemed to be the enemy. They could therefore be killed at will (or raped, mutilated, kidnapped, tortured, used to find and explode land mines). Arbitrarily, too: for running as American soldiers approached, for wearing black, for having safety shelters under their houses, for merely being – all Vietnamese in these zones were fair game (the term used was VC, Viet Cong or Victor Charlie).

      The practice was so liberating of some soldiers’ latent sadism that, when questioned over the use of deadly force, some even insisted that nonofficial free-fire zones were free-fire zones. Likewise, obsession over the body count (in light of American racism and what soldiers called “the mere-gook rule”) also led to abuses. Turse finds in the documents that official policy held that if more “VC” could be killed than replaced, this would stand for “winning.” If you add to this the internal military survey of officers’ understanding of the Geneva Conventions, which found that more than 96 percent of Marine second lieutenants would torture at will to get information, then the “fog of war” comes into sharper focus.

      Seemingly for most of the war, Turse writes, the military largely ignored its own investigations into war crimes, ignored or downplayed the testimony of up-standers and whistle-blowers who spoke out for Vietnamese victims of American murders, rapes and massacres, and ignored huge numbers of “enemy” kills taken with no weapons, which had to be turned over to the military.

      The pressure for kills led officers like Julian Ewell to train his underlings in the no-risk, relatively sterile if brutal practice of killing from the air. Ewell repeatedly shouted things like, “Jack up that body count, or you’re gone, Colonel.” Ewell’s body-count binge in one of the most populated parts of the country, the Mekong Delta, was code-named Operation Speedy Express. It would culminate in a ratio of 134 KIAs (or killed in action) to every American soldier killed. The problem was that even according to the military’s own findings, and Ewell’s own soldiers, easily more than half of these thousands of KIAs were civilians.

      What it all amounted to – as Turse makes clear, and as reporters for Newsweek would find – was essentially an official policy of ongoing My Lais on a monthly, if not weekly (or more frequent) basis. By the time Newsweek ran its highly edited follow-up to the courageous Times Book Review piece, the U.S. military had mastered the art of intimidating whistle-blowers, of punishing rank-and-file soldiers in courts-martial but then unilaterally dismissing the charges, of abridging or trivializing punishments, and of disparaging honest reporters and whistle-blowers.

      In one case, the pressure seems to have led one honest military investigator, Maj. Carl Hensley, to suicide. “The whole Pentagon strategy centered on portraying My Lai as a one-off aberration, rather than part of a consistent pattern of criminality resulting from policies at the top.”

      “Kill Anything That Moves” is a paradigm-shifting, connect-the-dots history of American atrocities that reads like a thriller; it will convince those with the stomach to read it that all these decades later Americans, certainly the military brass and the White House, still haven’t drawn the right lesson from Vietnam – which was that billions were spent to wantonly slaughter as many as 2 million civilians, and that this slaughter was the official policy.

      “Whatever remains unconscious emerges later as fate,” wrote psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Given today’s killings from the air, whole zones made up of enemies who are enemies for simply living in a certain area, the impunity of it, Jung was clearly onto something.

      Joel Whitney is a founding editor of Guernica: A Magazine of Art and Politics. E-mail: books@sfchronicle .com

      Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-4264163.php#ixzz2NQeqMOfA

  • Ted Crawford

    In my youth I was mentored to “Set a Goal and devise a Plan to achieve that Goal”, As far as that goes, it’s very sound advice! However that is just the ‘bold print’, A Goal, if we are to reach it, must be written in Stone, with large lettering and always kept in full view. I got that, what I missed was the fine print under the Plan! I believed that the Plan must also be written in stone. What life taught me was the fact that that dog don’t hunt very often nor very well!
    I admit, many victories have been achieved by those who have also believed that! Some have even been spectacular victories. Saddly, in the fullness of time most of these, especially the more spectaculr amongst them, have proven to be Pyrric Victories at best!
    The fine print under “Plan” states it must be written in sand!
    Myopic Idealism is a guarentee to failure! Knowledge is simply the accumulation of facts, Wisdom is how to apply these facts to real world conditions! The gGoal must never change! The Plan has to!

  • Terry Bateman

    Romney could have won the election had he run agressive counterattack ads in the
    spring and summer of the election year immediately after strong negative attack ads
    against Romney were aired by the democrats and kept his campaign running full steam
    ahead during and after hurricane sandy when the momentum was turning in his favor.

    The next republican candidate can win with agressive attack ads against the democratic
    candidate and a balanced platform of gun rights, tax code reform with flat rate and
    fewer deductions and credits, strong defense and no more interference in other
    countries (no more invasions), sharply reduced government regulations, more oil
    and gas drilling allowed on government property and no restrictions from the federal
    government on oil and gas drilling in Alaska, repeal of regulations that are closing
    coal fired power plants, approval of the Keystone Pipeline and LNG export permits.

    No need to go off the deep end and support stupid stuff like legalized narcotics,
    reduced social security and medicare benefits, or even good stuff like eliminating
    federal welfare and food stamps and Pell grants and loans for college since they
    would sink the campaign.

    • James

      In an interview Romney suggested that he lost because he didn’t get his message out. In fact, he lost because he DID get his message out and the majority of voters were not buying. His polyethylene personality and cluelessness as to the plight of the average American cost the GOP the White House.

      Listening to the speakers at CPAC was an astonishing experience. It was like listening to Renaissance Church officials reacting to Galileo’s discovery that the earth was not the center of the universe despite what is perceived from our planet.

      Snide Palin (bailed on her elected duties to the people of Alaska for $$$$) and Coulter, brought on a gag reflex. Senator Cruz is indeed a complete nut-job (how did anyone who listened to him for five minutes give him the GOP nomination – surely there were rational conservative thinkers available).

      When marco Rubio regurgitated the platitude that the GOP needs no new Ideas he indicated the same lack if insight that let him hedge on the issue of evolution vs creationism. If this is the best the GOP has to offer… deep doo doo.

      Where are the intelligent, perceptive, conservatives that our country needs? More Taliban-like fundamentalism is not going to win elections outside of gerrymandered districts.

      I like Ike – one of the most under appreciated presidents and one of the great ones. Today, he would probably not even get through a primary.

      I was lucky to meet Don Reagan and had a very enlightening conversation with him. He expressed concern for the future of the party and express the same thought that his dad would not even win the nomination today because the party has become so skewed by inflexible extremists.

    • Chuck S

      Rush Limbaugh was right – democrats lie about republicans, but republicans don’t even tell the truth about the democrats. One of many examples was Romney correctly saying in the first debate that Obama aproved far less drilling than Bush, but never repeated it afterwards. He at least said it once, which is more than they usually do. He should have told that, and more details, in his ads

  • JimH

    Marco Rubio is correct. We don’t need “new” ideas, we need to “return” to the Founders ideas. And if he’s thirsty he can go ahead and drink some water. (at least it’s not the Kool- Aid his opponents are swilling down)

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Smuggler Nation
      How Illicit Trade Made America
      Peter Andreas

      Add to Cart
      ISBN13: 9780199746880
      ISBN10: 0199746885
      Hardcover, 472 pages
      Jan 2013, In Stock
      Price: $29.95 (02)
      Shipping Details
      Description
      Features
      Reviews
      Product Details
      Author Information
      Table of Contents
      Description
      America is a smuggler nation. Our long history of illicit imports has ranged from West Indies molasses and Dutch gunpowder in the 18th century, to British industrial technologies and African slaves in the 19th century, to French condoms and Canadian booze in the early 20th century, to Mexican workers and Colombian cocaine in the modern era. Contraband capitalism, it turns out, has been an integral part of American capitalism.

      Providing a sweeping narrative history from colonial times to the present, Smuggler Nation is the first book to retell the story of America–and of its engagement with its neighbors and the rest of the world–as a series of highly contentious battles over clandestine commerce. As Peter Andreas demonstrates in this provocative and fascinating account, smuggling has played a pivotal and too often overlooked role in America’s birth, westward expansion, and economic development, while anti-smuggling campaigns have dramatically enhanced the federal government’s policing powers. The great irony, Andreas tells us, is that a country that was born and grew up through smuggling is today the world’s leading anti-smuggling crusader.

      In tracing America’s long and often tortuous relationship with the murky underworld of smuggling, Andreas provides a much-needed antidote to today’s hyperbolic depictions of out-of-control borders and growing global crime threats. Urgent calls by politicians and pundits to regain control of the nation’s borders suffer from a severe case of historical amnesia, nostalgically implying that they were ever actually under control. This is pure mythology, says Andreas. For better and for worse, America’s borders have always been highly porous.

      Far from being a new and unprecedented danger to America, the illicit underside of globalization is actually an old American tradition. As Andreas shows, it goes back not just decades but centuries. And its impact has been decidedly double-edged, not only subverting U.S. laws but also helping to fuel America’s evolution from a remote British colony to the world’s pre-eminent superpower.
      Features
      the first book about the history of smuggling in America from the colonial era to the present.
      Provides a provocative new twist on America’s founding, expansion, and rise as a global power.
      Counters today’s overly alarmist accounts of borders as under siege and illicit globalization as out of control.
      Reviews
      “In Smuggler Nation, Peter Andreas recounts the well-worn story of American independence less as a lofty quest for freedom per se than as a struggle for freedom from onerous trade restrictions. He points out that many of the important freedoms protected by the Constitution, though they owed their intellectual pedigree to Locke and Montesquieu, had their origin in the travails of colonial smugglers trying to get molasses or gunpowder or Madeira past British customs agents.” –Eric Felten, The Wall Street Journal
      “Deftly explains how the battle lines of the American War of Independence were drawn largely because of people’s varied and often self-serving relationships to smuggling…Smuggling is here to stay, and how we cope with this most American of practices will define our destiny in the years to come.”–Cam Martin, The Daily Beast
      “In this captivating new history, Brown University political science professor Andreas documents smuggling in America from the colonial ‘golden age of illicit trade’ through the Industrial Revolution and on into the current ‘war on drugs’… Throughout the riveting text, Andreas also discusses the sociopolitical climates that gave rise to these storms of illicit commerce. Far from romanticizing or condoning illegal trade, Andreas convincingly argues that the flow of illicit goods has defined and shaped the nation, both in terms of who and what goes in and out, and how society reacts with regulatory policies. A valuable and entertaining read for historians and policymakers.”–Publishers Weekly
      “In this well-researched history, the author examines illegal commerce in the United States from its earliest days into the modern era…An illuminating look at the historical impact of America’s illicit economy.” –Kirkus Reviews
      “In this terrific book, Peter Andreas shows that illicit trade is as American as apple pie.”
      –Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
      “Smuggler Nation is a tour de force. Porous borders and the efforts to seal them are not new to the 21st century–Andreas convincingly shows they have defined the American experience.”–James Goldgeier, Dean, School of International Service, American University
      “Through his extensive historical research, Andreas shows us that illicit trade in America is not an aberration but has in fact shaped the modern economy in fundamental ways. An extraordinary re-narrating of familiar episodes that makes visible America’s hidden connections with underworlds and parallel worlds.”–Saskia Sassen, author of Territory, Authority, Rights

      “Americans have long projected national power through open, free, and legal markets. Andreas, one of the world’s leading scholars of the dark side of globalization, presents us with a fascinating account of the role of illicit trade in the making of the American nation itself. This iconoclastic and timely book is an engaging and accessible primer for anyone seeking to understand the illicit dimensions of the global economy.”
      –Louis W. Pauly, Professor and Chair, Political Science, University of Toronto

      “An extraordinary retelling of the American epic. Peter Andreas shows us how smuggling shaped politics, economics and culture from colonial times to the present day. Meticulously researched and elegantly written, Smuggler Nation is an important contribution to the literature on American political development. Fascinating, powerful, persuasive, unexpected, lively, deep, and highly recommended.”–James A. Morone, author of Hellfire Nation and coauthor of The Heart of Power

      “The winners write history……..temporarily”

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        An interesting and refreshing read…but what Mr. Andreas describes in “Smuggler Nation” was standard-fair throughout history, and applies to all nations, not just America. It has always been that way, since man has been on the planet. What’s his point, or the purpose for sharing his radical-history of America with us? Is it to “shatter” any romantic notion of what America was/is?

      • JimH

        Hi Galt, Is Marco a smuggler?
        What is your point? In a 1000 words or less.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        “we need to “return” to the Founders ideas.”

        Ah, those those “mythical revered founder’s” and their ideas…..and the “patriots” of by gone days………….if only……

        If only you knew that…….

        1.) There was a singularly unique and new idea expressed concerning government and its relationship to the people in the Declaration, and it did not originate with a founder.

        2.) That the stage for the “revolution” was set on its inevitable course by the Molasses Act of 1733; and the Sugar Act of 1764……the lack of enforcement of the former, the change of this policy 31 years later, based on the intrests of the East India Company in coincidence with the interests of the British Crown……which were in conflict with the “interests” the “patriots”……..which is to say “greed and money”, which is to say, history writ Large once again, and something that you did NOT learn “in school” and would never permit your children to be taught…. ( but the TRUTH none the less. )

        3.) That, the rest of this document, not counting the listed complaints, and after all if you are going to be a “traitor” you might as well make it look good and you need help, from others who might have little interest or stake in the game, was convenient “populist” rhetoric…..a gamble to be sure, and very noble……..but not a word of it was TRUE, then or now, but it is being bought now, just like it was bought then…….the largest signature on this document, was the Al Capone of his day…..not what you were taught, not what you know…….but were SOLD, none the less.

        4.) That the Constitution, was “composed” by a bunch of drunks, in secret, which was essentially illegal…….alcohol consumption was 3 times the per capita rate of what it is today, Madison, the only one to manage “notes” did a pint a day, and the people who won this were “federalists”……so when you point to the “federal government” as being “your problem”, you have them and the Constitution to thank for it.

        5.) These men were the “elites” of there day, land owners, slave owners, and soon to become thieves of intellectual property, and machinery. No taxation without representation, really meant no taxation period, and the government learned this early on……..and this is just the “beginning” of the story………it will never be taught to your children, just like it was never taught to you……but you can find this “history” and follow it up to last week…….if you can HANDLE the TRUTH.

        For Jim H……Hope that wasn’t too many words, the book is far more detailed.

        For Jay……..I can’t speak for the “author”, but it is “my point”, and you
        are correct, it does apply to all of history………

        When Jeremy was confronted with the suggestion of “this somewhat stark
        revelation”…….his response was…….”the founders were not perfect”…..
        and this is quite “typical”……..problem is….they were no more “enlightened”
        than anyone else……they acted in their own “self interest”, in the same
        manner that we see today, with no more ability to discern the unintended
        consequences of their actions….than we have.

        You can not “change” that which you do not understand, can not accept, or
        deny. This too, is our “history”………

      • JimH

        Hi Galt, In a 1000 words or less, Is the direction we are headed Better than where we started from?
        Even though where we came from may be flawed,It’s way better than how we ended up.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Better in what sense? Looks to me like where we came from, is where we are.

        But take as many words as you like to explain why you believe otherwise?

      • JimH

        Hi GALT, You ask better in what sense.
        When we started representatives and senators were farmers, blacksmiths, coopers and people that would represent their fellow people. They weren’t multi-term professional politicians.
        They didn’t feel the great need to regulate every portion of your life. No food stamps, public housing, the need to regulate healthcare.
        There was a stricter adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
        They would balance a budget and not raise a huge deficit.
        I’m sure the lobbyists were there, just not as bold as they are now.
        You say you believe where we came from is where we are now, but with a 16 trillion dollar deficit, the senate not passing a budget in years and Ignoring a debt ceiling, no it isn’t.
        I wouldn’t call that improvement .

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        You are a romantic…….so I guess the message didn’t really make an impression.

        Do you want to go back?

        In the 1870′s the largest Dept in the Federal government was the Postal
        Service, the second was ‘customs’……..things change……

        We fought the ‘revolution’ with no money “as a government” and people
        made “fortunes” in the process…….so the debt is bigger, but it
        was far greater in 1945…….

        Used to be you could run away from “authority” or make the attempt.
        We have run out of room……of course you could try Alaska or Northern
        Canada…….

        Population density creates problems……and you still have to “solve them”.

        By what mechanism do you propose to “solve them”?

      • JimH

        By what mechanism do I propose to solve them. Meaning national problems.
        Not by growing the 16 trillion dollar deficit.
        Not by raising the debt ceiling.
        Not by allowing the Senate to operate without a budget.
        Not by keeping incumbents in for decades, to just work on being re-elected instead of their job.
        I would start by huge budget cuts. (want doesn’t mean need)
        I would have the Senate make and stick to and balance a budget.
        I would insist Congressional, Judicial and the Executive Branches followed the Constitution.(including the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers doctrine)
        I may just be a “romantic”, But given the chance it would work.
        Just because the people who wrote it weren’t saints, doesn’t mean what they wrote won’t work or is wrong.
        Better to be a romantic than a cynical fault finder.
        I could reread your novels you wrote to see if I missed it, but I don’t recall any solutions coming out of you.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Clearly you are not a “fan” and nothing i have written would qualify as anything
        more than a short essay…..

        Besides, i can not help your ignorance, I can only direct you to the sources
        that will enlighten you, if you choose to be enlightened…..

        For me, “austerity” is not the solution……because I am not ignorant and because
        i couldn’t care less what happens……I will play this game by whatever rules
        are in play…..I am extremely adaptable and will play by no rules at all, if that is
        what is required…….but I know where I am and what I am doing and I have
        known it for many decades now, which means I have led a far different
        life than most.

        Your opinion is probably easily explained by your circumstance, and your
        constitutional fantasy is simply one more to add to the rest……

        Let’s see if this helps…….

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

        I’m sorry the world is more complex that you would like and that
        it will not yield to slogans…….

        But here is some thing else to think about in your “better” world.

        The single greatest boon to health and human longevity is fairly
        recent, still not available to much of the world, and breaking down
        where it is available…..two words, the first one Is Public…….?

        Clearly we are not on the same page…..( I am a book
        with considerably more pages ) and there are many here who
        are determined not to be…..which is something over which
        I have no control……….and which is not something I lose sleep over….

        What you decide to do is up to you.

      • JimH

        Yes, you are a legend in your own mind. The rest of us “commoners” just don’t get it.
        I doubt you gave anything I wrote any consideration before you went to tell me how wrong I and the U.S. constitution are.
        Still no solutions, just criticism.
        I at least tried to suggest a solution.
        Just because for “you” austerity doesn’t work, doesn’t mean it won’t work.
        Just stay critical of everyone and be your own best friend, no one loves you better than you.
        Keep impressing yourself with your own pseudo- intellectualism because you are your own best fan.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Well Jim considering what you wrote in this instance would hardly be useful……and as you are “not a fan” ( as indicated ) you seem to believe you understand my “purpose”……..

        The rest of us “commoners” just don’t get it.
        I doubt you gave anything I wrote any consideration before you went to tell me how wrong I and the U.S. constitution are.

        I like the “inclusive” rhetoric, but the only real thing you share with the other “commoners” here…..is your “ignorance”, which is fast approaching “willfull”……..and your resistance to comprehending what you have read……which your first two “reactive comments” make clear.

        To refresh your memory “in 1000 words or less”, the first thing you were given was a “source of information” and a review regarding this source which would provide you with a factual evidenced based view of “history” ( rather than the “common” myths ) and second, a brief review of some of those FACTS which shatter those myths that persist with regard to the “causes, motives and actions” that were really responsible for the “revolution”.

        Still no solutions, just criticism.
        I at least tried to suggest a solution.
        Just because for “you” austerity doesn’t work, doesn’t mean it won’t work.

        Not being a fan, does have its downside. There are any number of “other sources” that have been offered to alleviate the “ignorance” regarding many other “myths” that are “commonly prevalent” here, among the self designated “patriots” ………..but mythology is highly resistant to both factual evidence and the intellectual effort required to reach a conclusion which is consistent with them and or would qualify as one which was “logically reasoned.”. To illustrate this, let’s take a look at your “suggested solutions”…….

        By what mechanism do I propose to solve them. Meaning national problems.
        Not by growing the 16 trillion dollar deficit. Not by raising the debt ceiling.

        Not to quibble, but the 16 trillion is (or might be) the DEBT, deficits concern the supposed yearly shortfall, and this is the current “austerity” solution proposed by the “republicans” and unwittingly subscribed to by the “not yet victims” of the PLUTOCRATS who are essentially ignorant of “economics” and the FACT that it is neither empirical nor a discipline…… ( To alter this state of ignorance see: Debt The First 5000n Years; Economics Unmasked and Econned or Extreme Money.)

        Not by allowing the Senate to operate without a budget.

        The “constitution” clearly assigns responsibility of the “budget” to the House. Both Presidential and Senate input are optional……and directed by “statutory” machinery……and this clearly permits many options regarding funding……without a budget. ( so they are not constrained by the constitution and you seem unfamiliar with it ( ignorant ) and have no c lue WHY it no longer matters. )

        Not by keeping incumbents in for decades, to just work on being re-elected instead of their job.

        Well best get to work because with the exception of the President, no terms limits exist in the constitution (the imagined one) or the as it exists in its “present form”. ( see above link, again or for the first time )

        I would start by huge budget cuts. (want doesn’t mean need)

        The “austerity” mantra, again, with a little Ayn Rand thrown in? First, what would you cut and why? Second, be nice if those that mimic Rand actually understood what she was talking about. ( need doesn’t mean want )

        I would have the Senate make and stick to and balance a budget.

        Other than a demonstration fo ‘constitutional ignorance” both past and present; this matters because?

        I would insist Congressional, Judicial and the Executive Branches followed the Constitution.(including the Bill of Rights and the enumerated powers doctrine)

        They actually are……( see link above, again or for the first time )

        I may just be a “romantic”, But given the chance it would work.Just because the people who wrote it weren’t saints, doesn’t mean what they wrote won’t work or is wrong.

        History shows the reality of what it was all about and why it didn’t work. That the “constitution” was necessary was because of “debt” and the failure of the Articles of Confederation which restricted the Federal Government to precisely the “romantic” view you have now. No one was “happy” with the “constitution” which emerged from that “illegal convention” and this “history” can be found in: Ratification; The People Debate the Constitution……which covers the state conventions. Sorry, more shatered “myths” and more work for you……but unavoidable if you seek knowledge and understanding.

        Better to be a romantic than a cynical fault finder.

        Why? Ignorance only empowers those who benefit by the advantage it gives them over those who insist on remaining ignorant.

        I could reread your novels you wrote to see if I missed it, but I don’t recall any solutions coming out of you.

        As I said……”austerity” will not work……..it was tried after the last crash in 1929…….and the “myths here” are still circulating…….these are: the Gold Standard Myth, The Federal Reserve Myth,The Fiat Money Myth, etc. To shatter these “myths” see; The Lords of Finance.

        But you are right; re-reading what you did not understand the first time and seem to be “refusing” to understand…..will not alter your “present condition”……..and other than pointing you to the means to do so, I can not force you to do so……..that is your choice…….I simply am the means by which……what you have chosen …..”willful ignorance”, is clear to those who would rather not be…….

        “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

    • http://naver samurai

      You are correct. Here is something showing how Obama bin Laden looks like the devil.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295082/Why-does-devil-The-Bible-look-exactly-like-President-Obama.html?ito=feeds-newsmxl

      And people said he wasn’t the antichrist. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

      You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot..

      “The fool has said there is no God within his own heart.”

      Psalms 14:1
      Psalms 53:1

  • JimH

    Cutting the budget is a plan, not a mantra.
    You ask what to cut. Dept of Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs. HUD, money to the National endowment of the Arts, Planned Parenthood, NPR,PBS, bailouts stimulus. You get the idea.
    It is poor stewardship of our tax dollars to pay for unnecessary expenses. Not mantra.
    To say that Congressional, Executive, and Judicial branches are following the Constitution is the ignorance you claim I have.
    The people who wrote the Constitution according to the book you read were scoundrels and scallywags,But does that automatically make the Constitution wrong? It just means the people who wrote it were of questionable character.
    You tried but you didn’t refute, that a balanced budget is right. That reckless irresponsable spending is wrong. That huge debt and deficit is wrong.
    You can’t refute anything in the Constitution. Pretty good for a bunch of “drunks,”.not a mantra.
    If you can’t refute go into it’s just a mantra, or it’s a talking point.
    You’re just one of those people.
    There is nothing wrong with staying in the budget, spending more wisely, and staying within the limits of the Constitution. Not a mantra.
    You have read all those books about the Constitution and the document itself.
    Does the book coincide with what the document says?

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      see reply above…….

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    JimH says: March 20, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    When you reply to posts, it is common to do so, where the reply will be SEEN……..unless you were hoping that it would not be.

    Cutting the budget is a plan, not a mantra.

    Where as “not a mantra” becomes a mantra when it continually repeated as a mantra……..rhetoric without logos is sophistry.

    You ask what to cut.

    No, I asked what and WHY?

    Dept of Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs. HUD, money to the National endowment of the Arts, Planned Parenthood, NPR,PBS, bailouts stimulus. You get the idea.

    Not really….I just see a list without explanation or reasoning with the suggestion that I somehow have have the ability to “assume” whatever you are implying…….

    It is poor stewardship of our tax dollars to pay for unnecessary expenses. Not mantra.

    How are they unnecessary? Are the “plutocrats” going to pay for that which they have taken the time and trouble, to corrupt government to insure that they do not have to pay for it?

    To say that Congressional, Executive, and Judicial branches are following the Constitution is the ignorance you claim I have.

    No, it was what the link……

    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    clearly demonstrated you have. So you either have not bothered to READ what was there…..or you failed to comprehend its meaning? Given your response, either remains a possibility.

    The people who wrote the Constitution according to the book you read were scoundrels and scallywags,But does that automatically make the Constitution wrong? It just means the people who wrote it were of questionable character.

    Actually two points were made…….the first was that the reasons for the revolution had nothing to do the the “rhetoric” contained in the four significant “documents” that comprise our ‘sanitized history”…….the second was that the final document was just another effect of the REALITY that existed.

    History shows the reality of what it was all about and why it didn’t work. That the “constitution” was necessary was because of “debt” and the failure of the Articles of Confederation which restricted the Federal Government to precisely the “romantic” view you have now. No one was “happy” with the “constitution” which emerged from that “illegal convention” and this “history” can be found in: Ratification; The People Debate the Constitution……which covers the state conventions. Sorry, more shatered “myths” and more work for you……but unavoidable if you seek knowledge and understanding.

    You tried but you didn’t refute, that a balanced budget is right. That reckless irresponsable spending is wrong. That huge debt and deficit is wrong.

    Actually, I didn’t try……..what I said was:

    As I said……”austerity” will not work……..it was tried after the last crash in 1929…….and the “myths here” are still circulating…….these are: the Gold Standard Myth, The Federal Reserve Myth,The Fiat Money Myth, etc. To shatter these “myths” see; The Lords of Finance.

    and I only used the phrase “austerity mantra”. But since you require more information ( although I don’t see why since you seem to have no intention of referencing it to improve your understanding ) let me expand on the “naive realism” that comprises the “austerity mantra”!

    Governments are not “businesses” and if they are to function properly, the mechanism by which they operate, is precisely opposite that of a “business”….in terms of countering the “oscilation” of the normal business cycle………( modern economic and monetary theory )

    Unfortunately this requires some understanding of both “economic theory and its history” which ultimately rests on the rather bizarre conclusion that “economics” itself has no validity…it is neither a science, nor a discipline……and as it is inextricably linked to human activity, it can never be allowed to operate without regulation or oversight.

    To grasp why this is TRUE requires a proper foundation…..which can be had by reading the following recent “knowledge” now available for both the “theory and its history”……….

    Debt The First 5000 Years
    Economics Unmasked
    ECONned
    Extreme Money
    Power, INC
    Lords of Finance

    There are no shortcuts to “enlightenment” nor does the process of “education” stop…….although if one has not made the “mistake” of “stopping” or in limiting oneself to a “specialised field”, then the process is much easier……because “keeping up” is far less strenuous than “catching up”, since this often means for most, starting all over from the beginning……..which seems to be the general condition of most people on “every subject”.

    You can’t refute anything in the Constitution. Pretty good for a bunch of “drunks,”.not a mantra.

    I’m sorry, but both the “Constitution” as written, as well as the one that currently ‘exists’………bears no resemblance to your “understanding”………..therefor no “refutation” is required…..

    Since the current mode of operation of both the Federal Government ( since 1938 ) and the State Governments, ( since 1964 or earlier ) is under “admiralty/maritime” law and the Uniform Commercial Code, nothing the government does can be “unconstitutional”.

    Your “ignorance” ( see link ) and its willful insistence will not change this TRUTH…….and this pretty much extends to the “entirety” of these exchanges between us…….and remain so, until you “catch up”…….today, is the first day, of the rest of your life……might be time to dig in and figure out where you are and what you are doing?

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

    • JimH

      I see that being able to grasp massive debt and reckless spending on unnecessary programs is detrimental to our nation as it would be to a household budget is beyond your grasp.(it must not be complicated enough for your pseudo- intellectual mind)
      I may not have said why my list of unnecessary expenses aren’t necessary, but you have really made an effort to prove they are.
      I see the way to get out of refuting something is to say you didn’t deem it necessary.
      Whatever works for you.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        How does your “ignorance” support any assertion made by you regarding
        the nature of my intellect?

        Government is not a “business” nor a “household budget.”

        The only thing that is “simple” here, is that your posts are shorter because
        you have run out of points to “distort” ( what was said ) and other things that
        would simply be “repeating” the “ignorance” you have already been cited for.

        Since you can not manage the complexity of the various contributory inputs
        which have brought us to this point, I will state the problem in a form that
        you seem have missed…….in the K.I.S.S. format you require.

        Your problem, our problem is a “government” corrupted by “plutocrats”.

        Austerity is the “solution” favored by “plutocrats”.

        It was the “solution” they favored after 1929, but did not get, even though
        they tried to use the “socialist, commie, progressive” boogie man, as they are
        doing now………but the conditions were so bad, they could not sell this.

        You, apparently are not as smart as the average citizen of the 1930′s, but
        then again, you did not “experience” the effects of what was essentially 60
        plus years of the effects of wealth acquisition and concentration…….

        The national debt in 1945 was 125% of GDP, yet the result of this was the
        “rise of the middle class” which had never existed before in this country……

        What exists now is far worse than that of 1929 and in your ignorance, you
        have bought the idiocy that the solution to ‘your problem’, is more of what
        caused your ‘problem” in the first place……..

        Is that simple enough for you?

        In any case we are done here.

      • JimH

        Things are only as complicated as people like you want to make them.(usually with ulterior motives)
        Large volumes of words, little information.
        You believe that you refuted my point, but you didn’t even get it. (it was to uncomplicated)
        K.I.S.S really does work in real life.
        If austerity is bad and reckless borrowing and spending on unnecessary programs is good why aren’t we all in heaven? We aren’t in deep enough debt? Maybe $22 trillion will be when we achieve Eden.
        Still no reason why my list of what I so foolishly and in my simplistic mind believe are unnecessary, really are.(because they’re not)
        Yes, we are done here, go back to your mirror.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        You persist……? Why?

        If austerity is bad

        That’s what the evidence shows ( as noted in the stupidly simple version )
        so which is it……..you didn’t comprehend it? For the umpteenth time……?
        Or still ignoring it?

        and reckless borrowing and spending on unnecessary programs is good

        Where did I say it was good? When you assume, you make an ass
        of you and “umption”……which combined with the obvious illiteracy
        and ignorance……..makes you a waste of time.

        You had a list……you claim that this represents the above. Unfortunately
        you fail to provide the proof………..that waste occurs is obvious, but that
        has been a continual TRUTH…..pick any year you like……pick any commission
        you like……..did anything get done? If this was not a critical factor in 2002,
        it is not a critical factor now……it certainly isn’t the “cause of now”……nor
        is it the “solution”.

        why aren’t we all in heaven?

        Because…….keeping it simple……..”our problem is a “government” corrupted by “plutocrats”………stupid. Was that too hard? Was that too complicated?
        Are you challenging it? Because I don’t see an argument?

        We aren’t in deep enough debt?

        “The national debt in 1945 was 125% of GDP, yet the result of this was the
        “rise of the middle class” which had never existed before in this country……”

        That you are a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”…….is NOT an
        argument……..and to keep responding with proof of this……is why
        we are done.

        You are dismissed.

      • JimH

        Thanks for dismissing me.
        I still go unrefuted, all you did was say I’m wrong, with no real proof.
        You STILL didn’t tell me why the examples I said are necessary.
        You ask for examples, I gave them.
        It’s up to you to prove they’re not. The fact that there always was and is wasteful spending Doesn’t make the example I gave NOT wasteful.
        You may go away now.

  • JimH

    ps, The reason I still persist mainly is I know you like to get the last word in and it really annoys you.
    Don’t question or defy the mighty GALT. (just don’t look behind the curtain)
    The rich run the government(plutocrats). The golden rule. The man with the gold makes the rules.
    Plutocrats like high debts and unbalanced budgets? Why? So Democrats can raise their taxes to pay for it?
    Back when they country started, average people served in the congress. Now we have puppets for the plutocrats.
    When I said we should return to that you told me how ignorant I am. Why?
    You may take your leave.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      JimH says: March 24, 2013 at 9:50 am

      ps, The reason I still persist mainly is I know you like to get the last word in and it really annoys you.

      A thought which occurs to you a full sixty minutes AFTER your last demonstration of “functionally illiterate, willful ignorance”. Each one, more impotent than the last…….until all that is left……

      Don’t question or defy the mighty GALT. (just don’t look behind the curtain)

      This from someone who is trapped in the scene from “Good Will Hunting” and can not escape………and will not stop. Sorry, Jim…the allusion only works if a curtain is required. Since I can do THIS, you never had a chance……you just get weaker……

      The rich run the government(plutocrats). The golden rule. The man with the gold makes the rules.

      The word was “corrupt”…..and that would be their “desire” if the could manage it……..which means you are almost grasping the “simple, stupid”……..so, Have they NOT managed it?

      Plutocrats like high debts and unbalanced budgets? Why? So Democrats can raise their taxes to pay for it?

      Has this taken place? Have the taxes been imposed? Have the “rules” been changed? Has what was deregulated been re-regulated? Or is the situation as described……of course, you probably won’t remember or correctly state what was described…….which is WHY I do THIS……and WHY you do not…….( assuming you actually know how. )

      Back when they country started, average people served in the congress.

      You haven’t actually taken the time to look, so that is just another assumption and is probably true to the extent that those who signed the documents or attended the convention in 1787, were average……which is to say, since you don’t know who they were….they were average. The reality is, by comparison…..and what average was and is, they were NOT!

      Now we have puppets for the plutocrats.

      Nothing has changed, in that sense. ( see all of history, again )

      When I said we should return to that you told me how ignorant I am. Why?

      Because this is not 1776, 1789, or 1877…..when the government was a “post office”…..there were very few trains, 0 planes and 0 automobiles. Because there was not much for government to do, (see largest employers ) and you still couldn’t drink the water……and they still didn’t do it well……..now there is just a lot more stuff, for them to mess up…………..unfortunately, this is to be preferred to the “alternative”. But maybe you think direct control by the plutocrats is better than “corruption”?

      You may take your leave.

      After you, my friend, after you.

      • JimH

        Not Good Will Hunting, Wizard of Oz.
        Technology is not the same since the 1700′s but human nature is the same.
        Would I rather have Davey Crockett as representative or Nancy Pelosi? Hmmmm.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        No, that’s what you think is the movie. I have simply corrected you again….

        “Technology is not the same since the 1700′s but human nature is the same.”

        It’s not necessary to repeat what you have already been told……so once again
        you demonstrate your “illiteracy”….or your “pride”……no curtain son……you are
        a fool standing naked……..

        Would I rather have Davey Crockett as representative or Nancy Pelosi? Hmmmm.

        Go for it……..you might find him a little STIFF……you forming an
        exploratory committee in Tennessee? Hell of an exit line, Dorothy!

      • JimH

        For someone who is so pseudo-intellectual you really don’t get the point I’m making.
        You get so wrapped up in the minutia of things, the main point goes past you.
        Pelosi, Reid, Derban don’t understand alternative energy, or health care or nuclear science either. The do make rules about them though. The ones the plutocrats tell them to make. What qualifies former lawyers to rule on that? Nothing.
        You argument that this isn’t 1789 is moot. It goes to the idea of the people being represented be their peers, not a full time career politician who is owned by a plutocrat.
        It’s about a limited government,that doesn’t need to be involved in many of the things they are.
        You still haven’t told me what on my list of unnecessary spending is necessary.
        You haven’t told me why a balanced budget is wrong.
        Se you over the rainbow.
        Never saw Good Will Hunting so your “correction” is incorrect.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Actually I have……..hence your “functional illiterate” designation…..

        And whether you have seen it or NOT, doesn’t mean that you
        have not been corrected……

        BTW are you old enough to vote yet?

  • JimH

    Most people speak in a straight forward way. If you wanted me to see why the National Endowment for the Arts is critical to our nation, your answer shouldn’t need to be deciphered.
    A person of your magnificence should communicate better.
    Maybe my problem is I didn’t explain myself well.
    I started will Rubio saying he didn’t need new ideas, the ones that were already there were best.
    I said going back to those “ideas” would be the right direction.
    You pointed out the history of some of those men. The men may have been flawed, but the concept (old idea) is still sound. He didn’t need a “new” idea.
    I don’t know if I did a poor job expressing myself or if your that stubborn or dense.
    ps you really didn’t refute my list, or your even worse at expressing yourself than I am.
    Some time a sentence instead of a novel will do.
    Follw the yellow brick road.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      So are you old enough to vote?

      Since this is not our first dance and you didn’t learn much from the first
      experience ….your attempt to re-engage brings the simple pre-emptive
      strategy of the equality myth, where you seek to negate the actual difference
      in ability to exercise logically reasoned intelligence, by the suggestion that,
      your inability to understand what has been presented to you, is my fault
      and that my failure to understand you, is my fault, because we both share
      the “inability” to express ourselves properly……how nice. You would have
      had a better chance of possibly convincing an observer of this, had you
      not begun with:

      “A person of your magnificence should communicate better.”

      Of course, like the first time, we are pretty much alone now……so are you old
      enough to vote?

      Regarding our respective abilities to communicate…….demonstrating where the
      problem lies is not difficult…….

      Maybe my problem is I didn’t explain myself well.
      I started will Rubio saying he didn’t need new ideas, the ones that were already there were best.
      I said going back to those “ideas” would be the right direction.
      You pointed out the history of some of those men. The men may have been flawed, but the concept (old idea) is still sound. He didn’t need a “new” idea.
      I don’t know if I did a poor job expressing myself or if your that stubborn or dense.

      Maybe? and “You don’t know if?……ending with “or if”, etc.

      The only part of that, that is me…..”You pointed out the history of some of those men.”

      and then you close with:

      ps you really didn’t refute my list, or your even worse at expressing yourself than I am.
      Some time a sentence instead of a novel will do.

      Is this a re-cap which represents an accurate summary of the “exchanges” that
      actually took place? If you look carefully at the first paragraph…..you will note
      that bracketing your acknowledging the “history of some of those men,you have
      created a mirror image…..with the suggested argument that, while “some of the
      men may have been flawed.” So you simply repeat your self…..when your point is
      simply this…..

      The men may have been flawed, but the concept (old idea) is still sound.

      What part of this “idea” do you imagine was not understood? It is the idea
      expressed in the article…..you are simply repeating it. My initial response to
      this “idea”……can be found at the bottom of this thread.

      My initial response to YOU, was to point you to a “book”……..regarding
      the history here………you were not interested in the summary of the book.

      You were then given, several points of interest regarding the early “history”,
      which you were not interested in…….( you want a sentence ) or “a 1000 words
      or less.” and failing that…..you end up producing it here.

      The men may have been flawed, but the concept (old idea) is still sound.

      Are you old enough to vote?

      Clearly the failure to communicate rests with you……..you assume that
      what you have said conveys understanding of a ‘relevant nature’ which
      presumes a “valid conclusion”……….you given evidence as to why
      it was not valid, and asked questions…….( you respond by ignoring the
      evidence and the questions )

      You assume that you have in fact “understood” what has been said to you,
      when the only thing that is obvious it that “you insist on not understanding”
      and “remaining ignorant”…….( so you keep repeating your argument, when
      it is you who should be asking questions, especially since you seem to
      be incapable of “answering” them. )

      Only you can correct your current condition, which is that of a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”……..the History in the BOOK, Smuggler Nation; How Illicit
      Trade Made America….is approximately 355 pages of text, followed by 70
      pages of sources notes. Neither the summary nor those items I selected as
      excerpts can convey the information in the book……..and it does not permit
      the conclusion that……

      The men may have been flawed, but the concept (old idea) is still sound.

      It makes that conclusion IMPOSSIBLE to support…….what part of that, do you
      not understand, yet? ( and this is one book of many “myth” shattering books
      that are emerging across the full spectrum of knowledge…….where the
      proper approach……is the more prudent one of…….everything you think
      you know is WRONG!

      Are you old enough to vote yet?

      You might ask yourself why I keep asking that question?

      The answer is, there is something “different” about your rhetoric…….which
      suggests lack of experience and exposure………rather than the “normal”,
      obstinancy and insistent stupidity that comes with age. ( and is essentially
      incurable save by death )

      Mythology is comforting…….but it does not lend itself to “logically reasoned
      intelligence” in seeking actual solutions to “problems”……..so, you will need
      to accept that…….we can not go back and the past is not what you
      believe it to be…….humans have not changed…….and the “idea” of
      america…..is total myth. But you can test this for yourself…..with one of
      your own,…….”suggested ideas”……..regarding Davey Crockett v.
      Nancy Pelosi…..and your so called “ordinary people” as representatives.

      First define what you mean by “normal”…..for those times….this
      would be circa 1832……in terms of “normal distribution of occupation”
      among the general population at that time……

      You can then check this against the members of the House, to see
      how normal these people were………in fact, if you produce the
      list of “normal occupations”…….the second part is easy, and I will
      be happy to do it for you…….if you can’t manage it.

      Finally…….the list was yours…..this represented the “what should be cut”,
      this still leaves the “why it should be cut”………

      If you wanted me to see why the National Endowment for the Arts
      is critical to our nation, your answer shouldn’t need to be deciphered.

      Not my responsibility and not my claim……and your assumption, that
      I should “know what you mean”….by the simple utterance of a government
      dept…….is not an answer or an argument.

      Are you old enough to vote?

      • JimH

        That’s a lot of words to say that you can’t refute it.
        It’s not the history being questioned. It’s the idea, the concept, the theory.
        Not difficult.
        Been voting since 76.
        Does your mom let you in the yard with only your pampers on?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Thank you for answering the question……..I guess your continued
        “willfully ignorant, functional illiteracy” will be resolved by the inevitable
        one………since you have much work ahead of you, in your quest for
        Davy Crockett or Rand Paul as your “savior”……I shall leave you to
        it.

      • JimH

        Happy Easter, GALT.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.