[Polpolion]

next time somone starts a new government, make damn sure theres a thing in the constitution for removing cumulative bull**** from the law books. where every new law has an expiration date and has to be reviewed and voted on at regular intervals. if the current situation of endless lobbying would continue under that policy, politicians would be so overworked they would can every bs law just so they can get 5 hours of sleep a night.

I think most laws already have an expiration date and need to be reinstated (eg AWB from 1994). Stuff like the NDAA also expires and just gets re-passed whenever it needs to be so it's not like they're just permanent power grabs. Plus it's not like you can't amend the constitution for permanent things, and it's not like you can't re-amend the constitution to repeal those laws. But yeah, there's definitely got to be laws that don't expire I think, but those are probably the ones that don't really make a huge difference when it comes to anything.

[stinkyFeet]

Considering that we aren't really following the constitution at this point, what is there keeping us together?

Remind me again where we are in conflict with the constitution, and why the Supreme Court isn't making a stink about it? (e: or maybe they are and I'm just not paying attention, preferectly possible)

I was thinking of the retroactive immunity given to telcoms and the Patriot Act, but I assumed there was a lot of stuff. It's my opinion that a large portion of the supreme court justices are a bit to partisan to make decisions based on how well they're supported by the constitution atm.

[Thaeris]

Ben Swann Explains Things

[Ulala]

I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude... This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood... Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates.

Thomas Jefferson. He knew ****. If you want to read the whole letter he wrote, you can do so here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=459

It's fascinating how much of what he had to say then applies to our corrupt government today.

[NGTM-1R]

Jefferson was one of the worst early presidents the United States had, managing the ongoing struggles in Europe and the US' effort to stay out of them so poorly that he almost caused a civil war. His emphasis on agrarian self-sufficiency means his rhetoric has little to do with, and nothing but contempt for, any of us posting here, much less our society.

Cite not to me a man who would refuse to try to understand modernity, as if he was the solution to its problems.

[FireSpawn]

Hey guys, how about when I become overlord of the Empire of FireSpawn (formerly Great Britain), i come over there and take those pesky upstart states? It would free up congress from all the bull****. And depending on how talks with Canada go regarding absorbing them into my dark empire benevolent nation, you may just end up with a lucrative trade agreement from both sides.   

But in all seriousness, I do find the whole thing rather humorous. Despite how large the numbers seem and realising that they are piss in the ocean, thanks to you guys I can sort of see the kind of issues it might create a foothold for. So just in case, all you guys should start building your bomb shelters just in case Nuke heads a takeover in the MadMax-esque times that may follow, and gets a hold of the nuclear arsenal.

[Ulala]

Jefferson was one of the worst early presidents the United States had, managing the ongoing struggles in Europe and the US' effort to stay out of them so poorly that he almost caused a civil war. His emphasis on agrarian self-sufficiency means his rhetoric has little to do with, and nothing but contempt for, any of us posting here, much less our society.

Cite not to me a man who would refuse to try to understand modernity, as if he was the solution to its problems.

I guess I just don't understand your point. Jefferson points out that governments tend to get too big and overspend (sounds familiar), then it essentially enslaves the people with that debt in the form of taxation, and eventually, austerity. It knows it's too big, but it will do anything to keep itself around for as long as possible.

On top of that, our government borrows its money from a private company (The Federal Reserve is not any kind of government organization and it functions with zero accountability, transparency, or responsibility), and it has plotted not just to steal our money, but our freedom (NDAA, Patriot Act). It colludes with banks, corporations, and the media to keep itself in power, regardless which party is at the helm (as long as it's not a third party; Gary Johnson got maybe 3 minutes of air time in all of the 24/hr election coverage that we had to put up with all year). It's trying to take control of the internet in our country (PIPA, SOPA, Sen. Patrick Leahy's "E-mail Privacy" Bill) so people won't find out what they're actually doing. How far do we let it go? Taxes will go up and eventually programs will get cut (already happening in Greece, Spain, Portugal, I'm going to assume due to corruption and extremely poor stewardship/theft of tax dollars) just to maintain the status quo which will get progressively worse, because our government sold us out to the Fed, the richest private company on the planet that no one has ever heard of.

Your trust in the US government mystifies me. Those who really believe all that **** I just listed is really "in our best interests" or just don't care completely floor me. They're taking our freedom, liberty, and money little by little, and they are not going to stop any time soon. The sooner we do something about it, the better off we'll be... but instead we're going to buy into the lies of either party, or just not give a ****, or argue about everything in between because we're exactly the kind of Americans they need us to be: ones who won't stand up for freedom, liberty, and a better life.

I don't care if Thomas Jefferson is one of the worst early presidents or not, it sure looks like he was right about what our government has become now.

Am I crazy? Or ignorant? Confused? What gives? I don't understand why more people aren't fired up by gradually losing their freedom.

* Ulala shrugs.

[General Battuta]

I don't think the deficit is a particular problem - it's the deficit's size compared to the economy as a whole that I think we need to be worried about from a macroeconomic perspective. As long as one grows in tune with the other it should be okay.

We seem to have been better off with the Fed than without it so far. Economic volatility was absolutely brutal back in the day.

[Aardwolf]

Idk what NGTM-1R's problem is

Jefferson FTW

[The E]

All this "big government is teh evulz" talk is funny. I know, I know, cultural differences and stuff, but still.

[Luis Dias]

Am I crazy? Or ignorant? Confused? What gives? I don't understand why more people aren't fired up by gradually losing their freedom.

Just ignorant, methinks. While "morally" Hayek has always been right in pointing out the dangers of too much government overreach, current internet gibberishtalking mistakes it for an actual economic argument. A proper education on macroeconomics could cure you from your RonPauliititis, so I advise you to begin.

[Ulala]

Please explain to me how the NDAA is a good thing. Or drone strikes that kill innocent people and only create new enemies. Or the war on drugs that puts 900,000 small time pot offenders in jail instead of working and paying taxes. On just those few points alone, I think I'll stick to my RonPaulitis. Also, Luis, do you even live in the US? Perhaps things look different from the outside.

All this "big government is teh evulz" talk is funny. I know, I know, cultural differences and stuff, but still.

Big government isn't evil, corruption is.

[MP-Ryan]

All this "big government is teh evulz" talk is funny. I know, I know, cultural differences and stuff, but still.

They're Americans.  One whiff of anything that looks remotely socialized (for individuals; socialized corporate assistance they seem to be good with) and they're resurrecting McCarthy and finding Russian-speaking Communists under and in every piece of furniture in the house.  =D

*runs*

[Aardwolf]

<3 socialism/communism

[Nuke]

^ theres one, get 'em!

[MP-Ryan]

^ theres one, get 'em!

That quotation from Dr. Strangelove in your signature is particularly funny today =)

[An4ximandros]

Why not just nuke him from orbit? That's the only way we'll be sure he can't escape!

[Luis Dias]

Please explain to me how the NDAA is a good thing. Or drone strikes that kill innocent people and only create new enemies. Or the war on drugs that puts 900,000 small time pot offenders in jail instead of working and paying taxes. On just those few points alone, I think I'll stick to my RonPaulitis. Also, Luis, do you even live in the US? Perhaps things look different from the outside.

NDAA is the defense budget, isn't it? What's so wrong with it? The "war on drugs" is the silliest thing ever, I couldn't agree more, but the drone strikes I also fail to see why are they so wrong. Just because there is "apparently" no person shooting the weapon, it doesn't mean it is not. And it also does not mean it is so vehemently different than any other military weapon in existence. So if you are not a pacifist, I see no logical argument for such hatred against "drones" (as they exist nowadays).

The RonPaulitis stuff is more dangerous in the economic field, where the rants against the FED, the deficit, the "go back to the gold standard" (omg), the argument that charity can and should substitute every single "socialist" policy (like say healthcare for the poor should not be given by the government but by "charitable" rich people), etc., etc. And it is dangerous because it sells under the banner of "Freedom", in a not unlike an Orwellian manner.

[Ulala]

NDAA says that even American citizens can be detained and held indefinitely without charge. Everything is wrong with it. It's a huge violation of our Constitutional rights, even more so than the Patriot Act.

I'm certainly no pacifist, but drone strikes aren't just killing enemy militants, they're killing innocent people, including women and children. Granted, it's not full on genocide or anything, but even one civilian death should be avoided at all costs, and scrutinized greatly when it does happen (IMHO). We have hundreds of civilian deaths on our hands. We're the terrorists now, and when we kill someone with a drone, their family and friends hate America and tell everyone they know why they hate America and now suddenly a lot more people hate America. It's terribad foreign policy. Not sure how to be more logical than that.

[Dragon]

So if you are not a pacifist, I see no logical argument for such hatred against "drones" (as they exist nowadays).

Well, you could argue that drones take jobs away from real pilots and give them to kids with remote controls. More than a few USAF pilots argue along those lines (and I think you could guess which side I'm on ). Fighter pilots having beef with UAV controllers isn't just a stereotype. That's about the best argument against the drones though (but still a darn good one). As for civilian causalities of drone attacks, a lot of effort goes into keeping them to a minimum. Say what you will about UAV controllers, the decision to pull the trigger is never taken lightly. IIRC, each individual drone attack requires an authorization from White House.

As for War On Drugs, they should legalize them, and put quality control and taxes on them. Drug lords would either go out of business or start doing legal drug trade after a while, just look at what happened to alcohol smugglers after The Prohibition ended. Considering some drugs are less harmful than alcohol, I'd consider it a sound move. Why should people be allowed to poison themselves with tobacco and alcohol, and not, say, marijuana. Aside from historical precedent, I don't see any reason. Right now, anti-drug laws put harmless people in jail, let drug lords prosper and weight down budget. If drugs were legalized, trading in them would start contributing to budget instead.