CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Olde Europe]

Seriously? The national debt was reducing prior to the Bush jr tax cuts. That is a matter of public record.

See the decline in the years preceding 2000? That was before the Bush jr taxcuts.

Federal deregulation wrecked the economy. It had nothing to do with spending. You are confusing two entirely different concepts here.

Given that Congress was deliberately and maliciously lied to about the need for the Iraq war that makes the warmongers who were doing the lying 'criminals'.

Quite.

That's Bush's crash of the economy, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's criminally bungled wars, along with the interest on all that amounting to a change in the U.S.'s fiscal position of around $7tn.

How about this one?

And, of course, the war on Iraq was criminal, as in not in response to an ongoing or imminent attack, thus violating the UN Charter, that is, criminal.

 

[Olde Europe]

So why not go with my proposal and limit what anybody, including those big bad evil billionaires and corporations, can buy with the contributions they make? Limit the federal government to specific authorized responsibilities and take away their ability to punish or benefit anybody that doesn't punish and benefit everybody else. Then the Koch Brothers or any other corporate interests can empty their entire bank accounts into campaigns and they won't get a single dime or benefit from it.

Is there a chance that you will, one day, think this through and realise that this oft-repeated proposal doesn't work?

If the U.S. government buys an expensive weapon system from Boeing, this sure is a benefit. Your proposal would then mean that the U.S. government would have to extend that same benefit to every other U.S. person or entity. And if Virginia gets a new U.S. Navy deep water port, Utah gets one, too. Or, if the U.S. builds a new federal highway, every construction firm builds an inch, so that this benefit is extended to all equally.

That is obviously absurd, and you don't mean to say that. With that, however, your anti-bribery scheme falls apart, for then lobbying for government contracts would remain effective.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you stated before, and so, I guess, you'll say again. Perhaps you should inform the markets of the unsustainable U.S. debt, for once they realise this is the case, they'll immediately cease lending to the Federal government, or request rates, say, in excess of 10% annually.

Or, you ought to realise that the debt is not unsustainable, and that the absence of prudent Federal regulations brought about the rise in debt in recent years, along with reckless tax cuts for the rich, along with criminal, and criminally incompetently managed, wars. The pretty stingy American safety net, and overbearing Federal regulations, which invariably you target for extinction, have very little to do with that.

Okay. Show your evidence that those tax cuts produced less revenue than the government was previously taking in.

Show your evidence that it was federal deregulation and not spending more than we were taking in that produced the debt.

Show your evidence that wars authorized by Congress were 'criminal'. (I will concede that all wars we have engaged in from Korea to Vietnam to Somalia to Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq to Lybia to Syria et al sans a declaration of war by Congress should have been criminal, and I have proposed that a new and improved constitution specify that no such wars will be entered into without a declaration of war by Congress.)

Okay. Show your evidence that those tax cuts produced less revenue than the government was previously taking in.

Seriously? The national debt was reducing prior to the Bush jr tax cuts. That is a matter of public record.

See the decline in the years preceding 2000? That was before the Bush jr taxcuts.

Show your evidence that it was federal deregulation and not spending more than we were taking in that produced the debt.

Federal deregulation wrecked the economy. It had nothing to do with spending. You are confusing two entirely different concepts here.

Show your evidence that wars authorized by Congress were 'criminal'.

Given that Congress was deliberately and maliciously lied to about the need for the Iraq war that makes the warmongers who were doing the lying 'criminals'.

I'll repeat the questions posed to OE and perhaps you will actually address them this time. Please do not confuse 'revenue' with 'debt'. Note that I did not use any reference to political parties, persons, or ideologies and any honest response will omit such references. And evidence of criminality really does need to be presented along with the specific charges presented by those authorized to bring charges.

Okay. Show your evidence that those tax cuts produced less revenue than the government was previously taking in.

Show your evidence that it was federal deregulation and not spending more than we were taking in that produced the debt.

Show your evidence that wars authorized by Congress were 'criminal'. (I will concede that all wars we have engaged in from Korea to Vietnam to Somalia to Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq to Lybia to Syria et al sans a declaration of war by Congress should have been criminal, and I have proposed that a new and improved constitution specify that no such wars will be entered into without a declaration of war by Congress.)

Okay. Show your evidence that those tax cuts produced less revenue than the government was previously taking in.

Show your evidence that it was federal deregulation and not spending more than we were taking in that produced the debt.

Once again you are conflating two completely different concepts. Federal DEREGULATION is what enabled the 2008 economic collapse. Spending had nothing to do with deregulation.

Show your evidence that wars authorized by Congress were 'criminal'.

Let me repeat, Congress was lied to by the Bush jr administration and here are all of the lies;

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

You will note from your graph that the decline in revenue was in the wake of 9/11 that triggered a very deep however short lived recession. You will also note from your graph that revenues started back up when the Bush tax cuts kicked in in 2004. So there is zero evidence that those tax cuts reduced revenues. At any rate the improved Constitution I would like to see would limit the federal government's ability to collect revenues and run up debt.

I did not mention the effect that deregulation had on anything. My point was that it is not more or less taxes or regulation or deregulation or anything else that creates debt. It is spending more than the revenues that creates debt. The improved Constitution that I would like to see would remedy that except for extreme emergencies.

And please do not confuse the extremely left leaning Mother Jones' definition of 'lies' with actual criminal activity. The question was not who lied or what lies were presumed told. The question asked for evidence of criminal activity. Since the Bush administration used no evidence that was not readily available to members of Congress or that members of Congress were not also repeating as evidence or that they could not have confirmed for themselves, it is very difficult to make any presumed 'lies' into a case of criminal activity. If we have Congress too stupid to check things out before committing us to a major military action on a bipartisan vote, we are pretty well doomed don't you think?

My proposed Constitution would put the responsibility on Congress where it belongs and we would not be committing troops for any war action without a formal declaration of war.

You will note from your graph that the decline in revenue was in the wake of 9/11 that triggered a very deep however short lived recession.

Hogwash! Why doesn't the graph show a "decline in revenues for the deep recession" under the Bush 41 administration? Recessions don't cause a significant decline in revenues.

So there is zero evidence that those tax cuts reduced revenues.

More hogwash! The increased revenues were from the Republican deregulated mortgage ponzi scheme that ultimately crashed the economy in 2008. The Bush tax cuts were still in effect and still increasing the national debt at a record pace. It is an outright lie to to claim that "there is zero evidence that those tax cuts reduced revenues" when it is clearly shown on the graph.

I did not mention the effect that deregulation had on anything.

Hogwash cubed! Multiple times you asked about deregulation and the national debt. Here are your exact words;

Show your evidence that it was federal deregulation and not spending more than we were taking in that produced the debt.

And please do not confuse the extremely left leaning Mother Jones' definition of 'lies' with actual criminal activity. The question was not who lied or what lies were presumed told. The question asked for evidence of criminal activity. Since the Bush administration used no evidence that was not readily available to members of Congress or that members of Congress were not also repeating as evidence or that they could not have confirmed for themselves, it is very difficult to make any presumed 'lies' into a case of criminal activity.

Every single one of those are exact quotes of what was said by members of the Bush administration or those answering to them. Deflecting to the messenger doesn't alter the lies that were used to mislead Congress.

And for someone who wants to write a "new constitution" it is appalling that you are unaware that it is a criminal offence to lie to Congress.

18 U.S. Code 1001 - Statements or entries generally LII Legal Information Institute

Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 47 › § 1001

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;​

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

.​

That you blame those who were lied to as being "too stupid" shows that you have no idea whatsoever as to the gravity of the crimes committed against the American people by the Bush administration. Instead you will make up excuse after excuse for them.

My proposed Constitution

Is a joke because it has no connection with reality. It won't work in real life no matter how many times you repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

All We the People need right now is an Amendment that will outlaw the Libertarian criminal corruption of elections and once again make our representatives accountable to We the People.

 

[Derideo_Te]

FYI for everyone who still wants to go down the Libertarian Utopia route, it looks like you have already achieved your intended goal.

Princeton Study U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."​

I think I've explained why, in other posts, but the bolded portion is minimized by libertarian policies. The very reason economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have so much influence on policy is because that policy has become their lifeblood. They invest more and more of their energies in controlling policy because policy has a greater and greater effect on their bottom line.

The Libertarian Koch brothers are the bolded portion. They are the problem. They want a Libertarian Utopia because it means zero regulations that are otherwise preventing them from raping and pillaging this nation to their hearts content. Libertarianism wouldn't be anything at all if it wasn't for them funding and pushing it as hard as they can.

The economic and political problems that we face today are as a direct result of the malign interference of the Libertarian Kich brothers and their ilk. Libertarianism is the foundation of the failed Republican "free market" dogma that has economically gutted the middle class and handed over power to the corporations.

Yeah. The Republicans aren't "sponsors of liberty" by any stretch. And their penchant for so-called "privatization" that still manages to leverage plenty of "big government" belies their rhetoric. So I don't see how blasting on them addresses the points I've been making. The fact of the matter is that every major regulatory initiative is dominated by those who stand to gain the most from controlling it. Google Liz Fowler. And stow the save the partisan sniping. It's irrelevant to me.

That you could not refute the facts says volumes. Deflecting to an irrelevancy like Liz Fowler says volumes too.

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

 

[Derideo_Te]

And there is simply no way to reasonably stop corporations or unions or any other special interests from using their money in ways that they hope to benefit themselves without federalizing everything. . . .

Utter nonsense! Of course it is possible to stop the Libertarian criminal corruption of elections. It is nothing more than bribery and needs to be treated as such. That you are willing to excuse such bribery means that you have no concept of the Rule of Law and how it is supposed to work.

 

[dblack]

I think I've explained why, in other posts, but the bolded portion is minimized by libertarian policies. The very reason economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have so much influence on policy is because that policy has become their lifeblood. They invest more and more of their energies in controlling policy because policy has a greater and greater effect on their bottom line.

The Libertarian Koch brothers are the bolded portion. They are the problem. They want a Libertarian Utopia because it means zero regulations that are otherwise preventing them from raping and pillaging this nation to their hearts content. Libertarianism wouldn't be anything at all if it wasn't for them funding and pushing it as hard as they can.

The economic and political problems that we face today are as a direct result of the malign interference of the Libertarian Kich brothers and their ilk. Libertarianism is the foundation of the failed Republican "free market" dogma that has economically gutted the middle class and handed over power to the corporations.

Yeah. The Republicans aren't "sponsors of liberty" by any stretch. And their penchant for so-called "privatization" that still manages to leverage plenty of "big government" belies their rhetoric. So I don't see how blasting on them addresses the points I've been making. The fact of the matter is that every major regulatory initiative is dominated by those who stand to gain the most from controlling it. Google Liz Fowler. And stow the save the partisan sniping. It's irrelevant to me.

That you could not refute the facts says volumes. Deflecting to an irrelevancy like Liz Fowler says volumes too.

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

 

[Olde Europe]

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

Why the reluctance to provide a link? As reading isn't really all that hard:
On Fowley.

And that's indeed damning. But, if you think that a Senator's staffer drafted the bill to suit her own predilections, which would render her "responsible" for the bill, that would be utterly preposterous. She drafted the bill according to reflect Baucus's policy objectives, and what would be necessary to ensure passage in the Senate. There plainly wasn't a large-enough majority to be had for single payer, and Baucus was against it from the get-go.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Libertarian Koch brothers are the bolded portion. They are the problem. They want a Libertarian Utopia because it means zero regulations that are otherwise preventing them from raping and pillaging this nation to their hearts content. Libertarianism wouldn't be anything at all if it wasn't for them funding and pushing it as hard as they can.

The economic and political problems that we face today are as a direct result of the malign interference of the Libertarian Kich brothers and their ilk. Libertarianism is the foundation of the failed Republican "free market" dogma that has economically gutted the middle class and handed over power to the corporations.

Yeah. The Republicans aren't "sponsors of liberty" by any stretch. And their penchant for so-called "privatization" that still manages to leverage plenty of "big government" belies their rhetoric. So I don't see how blasting on them addresses the points I've been making. The fact of the matter is that every major regulatory initiative is dominated by those who stand to gain the most from controlling it. Google Liz Fowler. And stow the save the partisan sniping. It's irrelevant to me.

That you could not refute the facts says volumes. Deflecting to an irrelevancy like Liz Fowler says volumes too.

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. The Republicans aren't "sponsors of liberty" by any stretch. And their penchant for so-called "privatization" that still manages to leverage plenty of "big government" belies their rhetoric. So I don't see how blasting on them addresses the points I've been making. The fact of the matter is that every major regulatory initiative is dominated by those who stand to gain the most from controlling it. Google Liz Fowler. And stow the save the partisan sniping. It's irrelevant to me.

That you could not refute the facts says volumes. Deflecting to an irrelevancy like Liz Fowler says volumes too.

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That you could not refute the facts says volumes. Deflecting to an irrelevancy like Liz Fowler says volumes too.

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

 

[dblack]

Oh, she's quite relevant.

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

 

[jasonnfree]

Prove it!

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

Probably by getting money out of politics, taxpayer funded elections only and no outside money influencing elections is what you probably are getting at. Big step in the right direction if enough people demanded it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. You'll have a tough time doing that too I think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

Probably by getting money out of politics, taxpayer funded elections only and no outside money influencing elections is what you probably are getting at. Big step in the right direction if enough people demanded it.

You cannot get money out of politics or elections when those who most benefit from that money--i.e. those in government--have the ability to pass whatever rules and regulations they wish to benefit themselves. Which is why campaign reform law after campaign reform law has not slowed down the flow of money in the least. All they have to do is rewrite the regulations to allow the money to come through a different channel.

Further those in the permanent political class whether elected, appointed, or high level bureaucrats, can easily extort whatever they want from commerce and industry with threats to pass or not pass specific legislation or with little hints about whether this law or that regulation will be enforced--with hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, nobody can know, much less follow, them all. That is a powerful weapon for those in the permanent political class to use. Even Harvey Silvergate, a strongly left leaning liberal, acknowledged this in his book Three Felonies a Day,

(Silvergate was not supporting my point of view in his book, but was referring to what he sees as the number of felonies the average American commits every day because of vaguely written laws. This inadvertently supports the point I was making in how the permanent political class uses that to their advantage.)

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. I still challenge you to do that.

#1208
The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

#1215
I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

#1219
Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

#1181
You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

#1184
Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

#1141
And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

#1144
When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

#1139
If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.
I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.
How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?​

Plenty of mischaracterizations on your part in just that handful of your posts. There are a great deal more where those came from.

Needless to say you will deny all of them because that is your default kneejerk response to all legitimate criticism of what you post.

So you can expect to be called out again and again whenever you do it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

Why not just disenfranchise We the People while you are about it?

Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

The ONLY means that We the People have to oppose the Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros. is the government OF the people and FOR the people.

The Libertarian Koch bros want you to disenfranchise yourself so that you won't have any means whatsoever to stop them from strip mining America of everything they can steal from us.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. I still challenge you to do that.

#1208
The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

#1215
I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

#1219
Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

#1181
You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

#1184
Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

#1141
And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

#1144
When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

#1139
If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.
I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.
How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?​

Plenty of mischaracterizations on your part in just that handful of your posts. There are a great deal more where those came from.

Needless to say you will deny all of them because that is your default kneejerk response to all legitimate criticism of what you post.

So you can expect to be called out again and again whenever you do it.

The first quotation (#1208) did refer to you personally only to specifically acknowledge that you had criticized those on the right, and me specifically, who are suspicious of or critical of the federal government. And that was tempered with 'seems to' believe rather than draw a firm conclusion about what you do or do not believe or did or did not say.

I do and will continue to call out those who misrepresent what I have said. I do not mind anybody disagreeing with me or making their very best argument to rebut my argument. But I won't agree that I said something or meant something or want something or believe something (et al) that I didn't say.

I fail to see how any of the other quotations you copied and pasted misrepresent or mischaracterize what anybody has said. They are all arguments I am making. Unless you consider that if my argument does not agree with yours, then that is mischaracterizing what you said? Is that what you mean? Is your rule for debate that nobody can express an opinion you don't like without being personally insulting or mischaracterizing somebody else?

 

[Foxfyre]

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

Why not just disenfranchise We the People while you are about it?

Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

The ONLY means that We the People have to oppose the Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros. is the government OF the people and FOR the people.

The Libertarian Koch bros want you to disenfranchise yourself so that you won't have any means whatsoever to stop them from strip mining America of everything they can steal from us.

What exactly do you think the Koch Bros are stealing from us? And how is giving power back to the people disenfranchising them or taking away their means to deal with bad behavior by anybody?

And how would taking away the ability of the Koch Brothers to buy any influence with the federal government be a bad thing? Because that is what I have proposed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. I still challenge you to do that.

#1208
The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

#1215
I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

#1219
Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

#1181
You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

#1184
Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

#1141
And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

#1144
When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

#1139
If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.
I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.
How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?​

Plenty of mischaracterizations on your part in just that handful of your posts. There are a great deal more where those came from.

Needless to say you will deny all of them because that is your default kneejerk response to all legitimate criticism of what you post.

So you can expect to be called out again and again whenever you do it.

The first quotation (#1208) did refer to you personally only to accurately point out that your criticisms of those on the right, and me specifically, who are suspicious of or critical of the federal government. And that was tempered with 'seems to' believe rather than draw a firm conclusion about what you do or do not believe.

I do and will continue to call out those who misrepresent what I have said. I do not mind anybody disagreeing with me or making their very best argument to rebut my argument. But I won't agree that I said something or meant something or want something or believe something (et al) that I didn't say.

I fail to see how any of the other quotations you copied and pasted and misrepresenting what anybody has said. They are all arguments I am making. Unless you consider that if my argument does not agree with yours, then that is mischaracterizing what you said? Is that what you mean? Is your rule for debate that nobody can express an opinion you don't like without being personally insulted or being a mischaracterization?

My point is that you castigize others for doing the same thing that you do all the time.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. When you do it about the government or the ACA it is still misrepresentation just as when you do it about what others post.

Stop whining that others are doing it when you are just as guilty of doing it yourself.

Then we can get on with actually coming up with an Amendment that will actually give We the People back OUR government FOR the people.