Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I want a benevolent dictator that mostly agrees with me.
I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.
Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handledYet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?
What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.
Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.
BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.
So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?
I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of controlI want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.
AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.
...There is an essential element that our government plays, which is to stand up to the rich/powerful and provide voice and opportunity for the "little guy"
With that said... Our current system has too much money in politics and too much corruption in our government which needs to be addressed
The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.
The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.
I couldn't disagree more. The system encourages the 'lesser-of-two-evils' voting logic that is electing the worst of the worst (or, arguably, the second worst).
Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.I'd prefer a more french or German like government.A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.
Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...
I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.
Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.
Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.
The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.
I couldn't disagree more. The system encourages the 'lesser-of-two-evils' voting logic that is electing the worst of the worst (or, arguably, the second worst).
Define what you mean by 'system' then - I am referencing our form of government as the system.
Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.I'd prefer a more french or German like government.
Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...
I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.
Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.
Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.
I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.
Executive orders signed by president:
Reagan -------380
G.W. Bush ---290
Obama -------275
Let's keep the facts straight shall we.
When the people are not fiscal responsible, there is little reason to think the government that represents them will be. The average adult has less than $5,000 saved for their retirement. 25% of Americans have no savings at all and half the country would exhaust their savings in less than a month if they lost their job.I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of controlI want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.
AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.
Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.I'd prefer a more french or German like government.
Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...
I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.
Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.
Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.
I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.
Ahh.. I'm specifically referring to our federal election process. Plurality voting props up two strong parties and discourages alternatives. It's the biggest reason we're saddled with two crappy parties and keep electing them even when the serve up turds like Clinton or Trump.
There is another solution other than a 3rd party, one that worked well for us for over a 150 years, coalitions. Up to the mid-twentieth century, there were liberal and conservative factions with in each party which did not clearly identify themselves within the party. When there were deadlock in congress, each party would reach across the aisle for support and form a coalition to break the deadlock. Today, that is almost impossible because of the polarization within the parties. Somehow, someway we have got to break the political polarization or the future for this nation is going to be pretty bleak.Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.I'd prefer a more french or German like government.
Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...
I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.
Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.
Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.
I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.
Personally I do not claim the American system of gov't is the best there is, but I'm pretty sure our political leadership sucks. So we are right IMHO to be very critical of what's going on in Washington but that doesn't mean the framework is seriously flawed. Certainly we should be looking at what can be done to make it work better, although making those kinds of changes won't be easy to do. Maybe we need a 3rd political party with enough clout to force the Dems and Repubs to negotiate with them and each other to arrive at more optimal outcomes. But I fear the future is not bright if we continue down the road we're on now.
I agree, that is just crazy. I'm sure that easy access to loans and credit cards along with the lessening risk of true hardships and consequences have fed the problem. Solutions seem to be in better education and better regulation of our financial institutions lessening their ability to take advantage of our citizensWhen the people are not fiscal responsible, there is little reason to think the government that represents them will be. The average adult has less than $5,000 saved for their retirement. 25% of Americans have no savings at all and half the country would exhaust their savings in less than a month if they lost their job.I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of controlI want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.
AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.
One measure of fiscal responsibility is a comparison of debt to assets. The United States has a debt (public and private) of 145 trillion against assets of 269 trillion, a debt to asset ratio of only .53. The average American family debt to asset ratio is just bit over 1.0.
Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handledWhat can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.
Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.
BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.
So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?
So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled
Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.
BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.
So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?
Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.
The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.
