quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And you go on spouting nonsense about what the framers envisioned...while ignoring all evidence presented to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Bullshit ...you have repeatedly come back with the same,previously discredited nonsense ,concerning the Framers and what they envisioned.
If you don't want to compare dicks....stay out of the mens room....(not meant in a gender way,sort of if you don't want a hair cut....don't hang out at barber shops...sort of thing....so please no flaming over that)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Not a complete list of what would remain, but essentially national defense, trade, and international relations, not to mention the federal justice system (though I'd cut on that some, too).  In essence, you'd end up with a governmental body that basically handles only those things where the States need to be represented as a whole.

Kinda like what the founding Fathers had in mind. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

You asked my opinion, and I gave it.  While I am aware of the disagreements and disparate visions that were held by the individuals involved with forming this country, my comment was an expedient summation regarding the final Constitution that was ratified by the States.  (See section 8.)

While you might like to emphasize that certain individuals would have liked to have seen a much broader scope of power given to the Federal Government, it really doesn't make any difference.  Perhaps the final document didn't go as far as some would have liked, perhaps it went too far for others.  In the end, though, compromises were made and agreed upon to reflect the overall desired direction of the group as a whole.

Nit-pick and quibble all you like, but it doesn't help your position.  My comment stands very well just as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

So because Marc and I happen to side with the framers who envisioned minimal and limited federal powers, we are somehow misguided?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Pfft... Sorry, but you really don't know what I advocate as I gave a very vague outline, at best.  It was never my intention to go into any depth or detail, and I have no desire to do so now.  Wasting my time by entering into a discussion with you on the intricacies of the political climate during the founding of this nation and the struggles between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Parties is about the last thing on my "to do" list.  Unlike others, I've better things to do than try to show off my knowledge.

quote:

Well Marc when you applaud a post in which another poster has suggested doing away with 95% of the Federal Gov......what would you call it...not to mention her assertion,blatantly wrong, and by inference also applauded by you ,that the "founding Fathers" were of a single mind on this subject......you sort of move yourself to the extreme...whether you realise it or not.

quote:

Kinda like what the founding Fathers had in mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY



First and foremost, get people into federal office who truly believe it needs to.  Until that happens... it ain't gonna happen.  


.

well... I'm sorry, but it wouldn't be any one of the items you've listed.  Off the top of my head, the measures I would take would include (but not be limited to):

• Eliminating 95% of all Federal departments, agencies, and bureaus.  Top on the list to eliminate would be the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and large portions of the Department of the Treasury (particularly the IRS and the ATF), the Department of Labor, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Homeland Security.  Any functions currently handled by these fund-guzzling, bureaucratic monstrosities would be handled at the State level should the overwhelming majority of the citizens of that State wish to continued with them.

• Overhauling the current compensation programs for Legislative office holders so that pay and benefits are reasonable and in keeping with a conservative idea of public service.  Term limits would be imposed and "retirement" salaries eliminated.

• Participation in and funding of "global efforts" would be closely examined for relevance to the welfare the United States.   Memberships and financing that did not support the preservation or moral standing of the United States, or prove to be of direct benefit to the majority of US citizens, would be eliminated.

There.  These steps alone should balance the budget and reduce taxes.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was this post that got my panties in a twist(you do like your gender specific mataphors,don't you).
This post in which you advocated taking a hatchet to the Federal gov to the tune of 95%.....you followed that up with another post in which you suggessted that this was the vision of the founding Fathers.....when I drew your attention to the fact that the Founders never held to one monolithic view as to the form of the new Gov....you simply ignored that fact and plowed on....constantly putting forth your veiwpoint as being in line with the "framers" never once ackowledging that the very result of the convulsions those same founders went through is what gave us the strong primary federal gov. you decry
Certainly this is a case of ones irrational belief system blinding one to the information presented.Firm speaks of this often...perhaps he can help you get over your stumbling block,it appears nothing I say is actually getting through....

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to TreasureKY)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Well Marc when you applaud a post in which another poster has suggested doing away with 95% of the Federal Gov......what would you call it...not to mention her assertion,blatantly wrong, and by inference also applauded by you ,that the "founding Fathers" were of a single mind on this subject......you sort of move yourself to the extreme...whether you realise it or not.

I fail to see how applauding one post infers acceptance of what is written in another post. That aside, I also fail to see how the statement:

quote:

Kinda like what the founding Fathers had in mind.

equals a blanket assertion that the Founding Fathers were of one mind. The statement is a generalization. I think you realize that but pretend otherwise because of this strange need of yours to lock your perceived ideological opponents into extreme positions. Advocacy of A does not automatically equal advocacy of B. Advocacy of a smaller federal government with limited powers doesn’t equal advocacy of a weak federal government.

quote:

NoMarc you applauded the post in which she advocated slashing the federal Gov.

quote:

The statement was not presented as a generalization...it was presented to wrap her anti-federal gov veiwpoints in the flag of the Framers...the very men who struggled ,cajoled and compromised to bequeth to us that strong central gov

quote:

And again you cheered this on......it was her tag line on the end of the post. her exclamation point that proves she's a real American

quote:

...who distrusts and would like to do away with most of the Federal Gov.

quote:

In another thread she likened liberals to hippies wearing rose colored glasses.....care to applaud that sentiment too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Because his policies have done nothing to improve things but committed trillions to do it?

LoL

Good one. Thanks, I needed a good laugh before bed.

But seriously, if you've read the entire thread and seen the examples and still have that position....there's nothing anyone can do to help you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Because his policies have done nothing to improve things but committed trillions to do it?

Really?  Trillions?

Where are you getting that figure from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Ive read the entire thread and if you think there is anything in it that shows improvement as a result of anything BO has done, you are the one that needs help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Ive read the entire thread and if you think there is anything in it that shows improvement as a result of anything BO has done, you are the one that needs help.

And if you seriously believe that, you're not worth my time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
youre right..you need to spend your time on a basic education in economics and business, then you can debate with people who already have that understanding, instead of personal attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Because his policies have done nothing to improve things but committed trillions to do it?

Really?  Trillions?

Where are you getting that figure from?

the congressional budget office.

quote:

If you go back to the CBO's predictions in 2000 you will find that they expected us to be running a surplus right now and a consequent reduction in the national debt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And you go on spouting nonsense about what the framers envisioned...while ignoring all evidence presented to you.

You're obviously reading something other than what I've posted here.  So far I've done nothing but decline to get into a pissing contest over it.  Go look for someone else to compare dicks with. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Now darlin', if it be a schlong showdown he's dickin' around with here, I think that right there is a fight he can win, with you.