• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Beretta92FSLady-

It was not my intention to come off as argumentative in my former posts. I am registered as a republican and loosely affiliated with the party. I was hesitant to involve myself at first because there is much I am in disagreement on with what seems like a majority in the party. However I think libertarians and unaffiliated liberty minded individuals are missing a good opportunity when they simply write off the party as useless (not saying that's you). In my limited experience I have found that since people's lives are becoming more personally affected than ever before by the growth of government, more and more people are wanting to become involved and educate themselves about the proper (Constitutional) role of government, supply side economics, state's rights etc...and as such I see an opportunity to start to get government off our backs. Will it take something huge, ie financial collapse, to wake up the majority; probably, but the more people who understand these issues the better IMO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAg8a0vCZQ

I am not trying to be argumentative. But the first issue I see is establishing what "proper Constitutional role" even means. The Government is on our backs, but is it unConstitutional, maybe, maybe not. People decry the "overreaching government" but forget that the nature of government is to assure its survival at any cost, even at the cost of the life of you and/or I.

I hope that we have a complete financial collapse. The reason: I believe that all of us, including the top 1%, and politicians need to be knocked down a couple of pegs, if we get back up, and come to the table, and hash something out collectively, we will be a better America...if not, then we will suffer for our hard-headedness, and inability to compromise. Unfortunately, it is more likely than not a financial collapse will harden the position of the most powerful in this country, the rich, big business. It looks like we are screwed, no matter what we do. The right has concluded that any compromise is defeat, and that the actual goal is not a better America, but power. Welcome to our vicious political cycle, that will likely never end.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
There is no formal "Tea Party". Anyone may associate themselves with it. Thus, the term has no meaning.

The problem I have with the predominant populace which self-identifies as "Tea Party" is that, while supposing to adopt fiscally conservative principles, they also, predominantly, adopt socially "conservative" principles, which today are as liberty-hating as any left-wing organization. I'll let the Tea Party people crap on each other. The balance of public perception is that Sarah Palin epitomizes "the" Tea Party, and therefore I'll have nothing to do with "it".

Further, I'll have nothing to do with the Republican Party, which is as power-mad as the Democratic Party (yes, I'm sorry, folks, that truly is the official name of the party, so stop with the puerile "Democrat Party" crap). Whatever you would like the GOP to be, the reality of its track record is that the only reason it hasn't, yet, advocated bigger government than the Democratic Party is simply because it hasn't had the balls to, yet. Obama doesn't represent a difference of kind, from Bush2, he merely represents a difference of degree, a difference of which Republicans are jealous.

I am, myself, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who believes more strongly in the infallibility of the Bible. Yet, I find absolutely zero Biblical justification for the attempt to impose supposedly-Christian principles on people through the force (i.e. gun-to-head) of law. Dominion theology is despicable and entirely without basis.

Here's my point: objecting to Democrats, in favor of Republicans, is entirely devoid of reason, unless you're an elected official of either party, or a member of either party's official apparatus. If you support liberty, do so devoid of party affiliation. If you support authoritarianism, support Democrats or Republicans. If you try to label me a "Libertarian", you're simply ignorant. I'm not even fond of "libertarian", though I suppose I won't object too strongly.
 

Lokster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
127
Location
Unincorporated Jefferson County
I am not trying to be argumentative. But the first issue I see is establishing what "proper Constitutional role" even means. The Government is on our backs, but is it unConstitutional, maybe, maybe not. People decry the "overreaching government" but forget that the nature of government is to assure its survival at any cost, even at the cost of the life of you and/or I.

I hope that we have a complete financial collapse. The reason: I believe that all of us, including the top 1%, and politicians need to be knocked down a couple of pegs, if we get back up, and come to the table, and hash something out collectively, we will be a better America...if not, then we will suffer for our hard-headedness, and inability to compromise. Unfortunately, it is more likely than not a financial collapse will harden the position of the most powerful in this country, the rich, big business. It looks like we are screwed, no matter what we do. The right has concluded that any compromise is defeat, and that the actual goal is not a better America, but power. Welcome to our vicious political cycle, that will likely never end.

A Constitutional comprise that is starting to gain some traction is the 10th Amendment and the concept of state's rights. IMO all parties would benefit from this. The best check on the fed would be when individual states realize it's up to their legislatures to determine when the fed is overstepping a boundary and is thus unconstitutional or not doing enough and prefer to take matters into their own hands. Of course the states already have this authority as spelled out by the Constitution, but it would sure be nice to see some exercise it. I don't think it's too far out of the realm of possibility; especially if the SCOTUS rules unfavorably against state prerogative in future cases such as: mandated health ins., illegal immigration..etc..
 

Lokster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
127
Location
Unincorporated Jefferson County
There is no formal "Tea Party". Anyone may associate themselves with it. Thus, the term has no meaning.

The problem I have with the predominant populace which self-identifies as "Tea Party" is that, while supposing to adopt fiscally conservative principles, they also, predominantly, adopt socially "conservative" principles, which today are as liberty-hating as any left-wing organization. I'll let the Tea Party people crap on each other. The balance of public perception is that Sarah Palin epitomizes "the" Tea Party, and therefore I'll have nothing to do with "it".

Further, I'll have nothing to do with the Republican Party, which is as power-mad as the Democratic Party (yes, I'm sorry, folks, that truly is the official name of the party, so stop with the puerile "Democrat Party" crap). Whatever you would like the GOP to be, the reality of its track record is that the only reason it hasn't, yet, advocated bigger government than the Democratic Party is simply because it hasn't had the balls to, yet. Obama doesn't represent a difference of kind, from Bush2, he merely represents a difference of degree, a difference of which Republicans are jealous.

I am, myself, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who believes more strongly in the infallibility of the Bible. Yet, I find absolutely zero Biblical justification for the attempt to impose supposedly-Christian principles on people through the force (i.e. gun-to-head) of law. Dominion theology is despicable and entirely without basis.

Here's my point: objecting to Democrats, in favor of Republicans, is entirely devoid of reason, unless you're an elected official of either party, or a member of either party's official apparatus. If you support liberty, do so devoid of party affiliation. If you support authoritarianism, support Democrats or Republicans. If you try to label me a "Libertarian", you're simply ignorant. I'm not even fond of "libertarian", though I suppose I won't object too strongly.

Sounds sensible to me.

WHOOPS. Sorry ()pen(arry I replied to the wrong quote. (I'm still trying get the hang of using the features of the forum.)

I meant to ask you to elaborate on what you meant when you said "If you support liberty, do so devoid of party affiliate." How do you go about supporting liberty, specifically?
To me supporting liberty could mean raise awareness and educate others of the subject. In my experience using the structure of any party to do so could be one way, if others are listening.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
There is no formal "Tea Party". Anyone may associate themselves with it. Thus, the term has no meaning.

The problem I have with the predominant populace which self-identifies as "Tea Party" is that, while supposing to adopt fiscally conservative principles, they also, predominantly, adopt socially "conservative" principles, which today are as liberty-hating as any left-wing organization. I'll let the Tea Party people crap on each other. The balance of public perception is that Sarah Palin epitomizes "the" Tea Party, and therefore I'll have nothing to do with "it".

Further, I'll have nothing to do with the Republican Party, which is as power-mad as the Democratic Party (yes, I'm sorry, folks, that truly is the official name of the party, so stop with the puerile "Democrat Party" crap). Whatever you would like the GOP to be, the reality of its track record is that the only reason it hasn't, yet, advocated bigger government than the Democratic Party is simply because it hasn't had the balls to, yet. Obama doesn't represent a difference of kind, from Bush2, he merely represents a difference of degree, a difference of which Republicans are jealous.

I am, myself, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. You will be hard-pressed to find someone who believes more strongly in the infallibility of the Bible. Yet, I find absolutely zero Biblical justification for the attempt to impose supposedly-Christian principles on people through the force (i.e. gun-to-head) of law. Dominion theology is despicable and entirely without basis.

Here's my point: objecting to Democrats, in favor of Republicans, is entirely devoid of reason, unless you're an elected official of either party, or a member of either party's official apparatus. If you support liberty, do so devoid of party affiliation. If you support authoritarianism, support Democrats or Republicans. If you try to label me a "Libertarian", you're simply ignorant. I'm not even fond of "libertarian", though I suppose I won't object too strongly.

What he said + 1.

Thomas Jefferson refused to be affiliated with political parties. He thought it to be the best way to destroy the federation.
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I meant to ask you to elaborate on what you meant when you said "If you support liberty, do so devoid of party affiliate." How do you go about supporting liberty, specifically?
To me supporting liberty could mean raise awareness and educate others of the subject. In my experience using the structure of any party to do so could be one way, if others are listening.

Voting is the last and, arguably, least important step in the process of democracy. Far more important than voting is participating in the real meat of democracy: the free exchange of ideas. You support liberty not by telling people why Republicans or Democrats are less bad than the other, but by convincing them of the need for and value of liberty in the first place. Bickering about some bill that was written by lobbyists in the first place doesn't convince anyone. Talking to them about the very real and practical aspects of their daily lives, and how government affects them, might. Don't proselytize. Don't pass out tracts. Simply talk to people in natural and organic ways.

Example:
Let's say your city has banned smoking in bars, and you're outside in the cold, smoking with a stranger. That stranger says, "Damn, it's cold out here." You reply, "No kidding. It sucks having to smoke outside, but I guess everyone wants to tell someone else what they can and can't do." There was no overtly political overtone, no lead-in to a potential argument about whose favorite corrupt guy is better than the other's, just a simple idea planted in the other person's mind that, hopefully, will germinate some day. Of course, if they want to talk more about it, then do so, but don't force the conversation on them.

If you are going to vote, then vote. Do not, however, place any premium whatsoever on a candidate due to that candidate's party affiliation. Ever. If none of the candidates actually represent you, or if you don't know enough about a candidate to know if that candidate actually represents you, write in your best friend's name, or maybe your own. Your vote for someone very literally states that you believe that person stands for you and what you believe. Make sure that that's true. Never throw your vote away on some jackass just because you think he's less bad than another clown. The lesser of two evils argument is not only full of crap, it's the oldest and most effective tool of the powers that be.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Which is why I specifically used the phrase "the process of democracy". :)

That was not your lone reference to democracy in that post. Your post fosters the idea that we are a democracy, regardless of your intention to do so or not. I felt the need to counter that fostering.

We should avoid using that word in reference to the political system in our country. If a process is based on voting, such as the election of representatives or of electors, then the proper descriptive word is "democratic." Democracy is not a process; it is a political system of governance--one which the US does not employ.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
That was not your lone reference to democracy in that post. Your post fosters the idea that we are a democracy, regardless of your intention to do so or not. I felt the need to counter that fostering.

Voting is the last and, arguably, least important step in the process of democracy. Far more important than voting is participating in the real meat of democracy: the free exchange of ideas.

That is the full extent of my use of the term "democracy" in my post. I really have no idea where you're getting your conclusion from. Is it possible you have a knee-jerk reaction to statements that this country is "a democracy", and it misfired in this case?

We should avoid using that word in reference to the political system in our country. If a process is based on voting, such as the election of representatives or of electors, then the proper descriptive word is "democratic." Democracy is not a process; it is a political system of governance--one which the US does not employ.

"Democracy" is a political mechanism which grants decision-making power to the members of a governed society by any of several implementations, and is absolutely part of the political process in this country, from 1787 (and before) until today. "A democracy" is a term often used, ambiguously and with varying accuracy, to describe a country that uses democratic mechanisms in its political processes. The strictest meaning of "a democracy" is a political system that puts all government decisions to referendum, also known as a "direct democracy", and is not how this country's political system works. "Democracy" is a noun, employed by me, when identifying a political mechanism in this country, in a qualitative fashion, and misemployed by some, when referring to this country as a whole, in a quantitative fashion. "Democratic" is an adjective, with the same root as the previously identified noun, carrying the same meaning, but through a different part of speech.

Now, you are certainly welcome to employ personal, arbitrary semantic standards in your own speech, but please don't quibble when someone uses accurate language in a way you don't prefer. What I said is factually correct and unambiguous, so I'm going to have to go with "knee-jerk", here.

EDIT: Corrected a mis-attribution, due to copy/paste error, in the third quote of this post.
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
This is not a country. Texas is a country. Alabama is a country. Hell, even Kalifornia is a country. What we live in is a federation of 50 countries.

Here is a decent explanation of the term "country" from Wikipedia. A snippet, from the overview:

A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region. Usually, but not always, a country coincides with a sovereign territory and is associated with a state, nation or government. Commonly, the term is used in the sense of both nations and states, with definitions varying. In some cases it is used to refer both to states and to other political entities, while in some occasions it refers only to states. It is not uncommon for general information or statistical publications to adopt the wider definition for purposes such as illustration and comparison.

I do understand, and broadly agree with, your point, but by any commonly-accepted definition of "country", the United States is a country. One may reasonably describe the 50 states comprising the United States as "countries", but while the more formal term for the United States is "republic", it is, in fact, a country.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Here is a decent explanation of the term "country" from Wikipedia. A snippet, from the overview:



I do understand, and broadly agree with, your point, but by any commonly-accepted definition of "country", the United States is a country. One may reasonably describe the 50 states comprising the United States as "countries", but while the more formal term for the United States is "republic", it is, in fact, a country.

I don't use Wikipedia for anything. It is too easily manipulated.

When the Constitution was written the word state meant country, not a subdivision of a country much like it is used today. If you will notice that it is always capitalized in the Constitution.

Republic merely describes a form of government, not a type of country.

Before the "War of Northern Aggression" the phrase was "the United States are", afterwards it became "the United States is".

This is a federation of 50 countries, not a country as a whole.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Like I said, I agree with your point. It is true, however, that the modern usage of the word "country" in American English is, short of contextual clarification, synonymous with "nation" and "sovereign state". To be clear in the future, however, I'll take cue from your disambiguation and use something more exact.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Like I said, I agree with your point. It is true, however, that the modern usage of the word "country" in American English is, short of contextual clarification, synonymous with "nation" and "sovereign state". To be clear in the future, however, I'll take cue from your disambiguation and use something more exact.

My first post was actually sarcasm on eye95's reply to your use of the word "democracy". When you answered the way you did, I figured to get a bit more serious. Should have let my intentions be a little clearer.

PEACE?
 

Lokster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
127
Location
Unincorporated Jefferson County
Voting is the last and, arguably, least important step in the process of democracy. Far more important than voting is participating in the real meat of democracy: the free exchange of ideas. You support liberty not by telling people why Republicans or Democrats are less bad than the other, but by convincing them of the need for and value of liberty in the first place. Bickering about some bill that was written by lobbyists in the first place doesn't convince anyone. Talking to them about the very real and practical aspects of their daily lives, and how government affects them, might. Don't proselytize. Don't pass out tracts. Simply talk to people in natural and organic ways.

Example:
Let's say your city has banned smoking in bars, and you're outside in the cold, smoking with a stranger. That stranger says, "Damn, it's cold out here." You reply, "No kidding. It sucks having to smoke outside, but I guess everyone wants to tell someone else what they can and can't do." There was no overtly political overtone, no lead-in to a potential argument about whose favorite corrupt guy is better than the other's, just a simple idea planted in the other person's mind that, hopefully, will germinate some day. Of course, if they want to talk more about it, then do so, but don't force the conversation on them.

If you are going to vote, then vote. Do not, however, place any premium whatsoever on a candidate due to that candidate's party affiliation. Ever. If none of the candidates actually represent you, or if you don't know enough about a candidate to know if that candidate actually represents you, write in your best friend's name, or maybe your own. Your vote for someone very literally states that you believe that person stands for you and what you believe. Make sure that that's true. Never throw your vote away on some jackass just because you think he's less bad than another clown. The lesser of two evils argument is not only full of crap, it's the oldest and most effective tool of the powers that be.

Thanks for the response, ()pen(arry. I don't have any disagreement with what you stated in the above post. I still maintain that all of that can be done while being registered with, "or a member of either party's official apparatus" as you put it.
Am I wrong?
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Thanks for the response, ()pen(arry. I don't have any disagreement with what you stated in the above post. I still maintain that all of that can be done while being registered with, "or a member of either party's official apparatus" as you put it.
Am I wrong?

Of course, but being registered with a party or a part of its apparatus doesn't provide any net benefit to the effort to spread liberty. The only effect registration has, and only in most states, is that it changes how you're allowed to vote in primaries. If you're part of a party apparatus, however, you'll be spending your time and money working toward the party's goals, which have little or nothing to do with liberty. So really, why register? If you care about liberty, why would you associate with a party at all?
 
Top