FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386  |
Report this
Oct. 28 2012, 3:47 pm
Quote: DS9_FOREVER! @ Oct. 28 2012, 1:37 pm | Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 4:07 am | >
>Okay, now I have a moment to elaborate on my last post. (Sorry, I worked an eleven hour shift, so I didn't Gabe much time.) BamBam implied that a government-run education system is socialist. Well, many if the Founding Fathers wanted such a system. Thomas Jefferson was the most vocal in this, often pushing for a publicly paid-for universal education system. BamBam also implied that restrictions on corporations is socialist. Well, that's something that the Founding Fathers all agreed on; corporations MUST be restricted. Not only did they agree, they implemented said restrictions. They wanted corporations to have as little power as possible. And can you blame them? Pre-Revolution colonists were forced to deal with unregulated corporations, namely the East India Company. These corporations demanded high taxes while simultaneously restricting private commerce. The Founding Fathers didn't want to see this happen again. In conclusion, what BamBam calls socialism, the Founding Fathers called necessary. |
Concerning education. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in there grave because there is such a thing as the Federal Department of Eduacation. They favored states rights, not the Federal government.
Business does need to be kept in check. Specifically what they were referring to were the banks. Now we have 5 banks that are "to big to fail".
|
Exactly.... I've explained this multiple times here and have cited the writings of our Founders.... and Wishfire knows this, continuing to choose to say the Founders wanted just the opposite of what they actually wrote (which is why s/he's on my 'ignore' list.) In this case, trying to make us believe that something that was okay for a state was actually meant for the federal government - exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers did. I've never understood why some people continue to purposefully state things that they know aren't true - they didn't learn the lesson of the boy who cried wolf.
If the Founding Fathers had wanted a national government controlling education, they would have listed it as an enumerated power.
Religion was also extremely important to our Founding Fathers (just read their writings,) but they didn't want to control it via the Federal government. (Although some states did have state religions.)
And, yes, the Founding Fathers were concerned about banks of the time - and a big reason was because they were able to print their own money - which is why they fixed that via the Constitution. The goal of the commerce clause was to open up commerce, not crush/control it - anyone that reads the writings of our Founding Fathers knows this.
Most of the Founding Fathers were businessmen, owning their own businesses.... yet the ProRegressives here continue to say that the Founding Fathers were essentially self masochistic - wanting to harm themselves and their businesses by pushing the federal government they created to control / crush their own businesses.
|
chr33355 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1543  |
Report this
Oct. 28 2012, 5:13 pm
Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 1:54 pm | >The Founding Fathers wanted universal education. They recognized education as essential for the prosperity of a nation, especially a new one like the United States, both economically and to sustain a self-governing government (republic). And they hated corporations. Now, big banks would certainly qualify as corporations, but they were against any form of corporation, which is why they imposed massive restrictions on them |
The founding fathers didn't impose massive restrictions on corporations. In fact their wasn't a lot of restrictions until the early 1900s. In fact the founding fathers were very interested in protecting American buisness from over seas companies by having the federal government finance exclusivly by trade tariffs up until the civil war.
|
chad.presley GROUP: Members POSTS: 1 |
Report this
Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm
Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President  We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he |
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm
Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm | >
>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he
> |
Nice dream. I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government. I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.
|
Invader_Wishfire GROUP: Members POSTS: 27510 |
Report this
Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm
chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal.
Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time.
|
DS9_FOREVER! GROUP: Members POSTS: 124 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 6:24 am
Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm | >chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal. Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time. |
I'm fairly certain they couldn't donate to political parties...
I just found this great Star Trek MB!!
 |
|
chr33355 GROUP: Members POSTS: 1543 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 7:00 am
Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Oct. 28 2012, 10:24 pm | >chr, they did indeed impose restrictions on corporations. On a massive scale. You are right that they wanted to protect businesses, but it was small privately-owned businesses that they wanted to protect. In the early days if this nation, a corporate entity could not exist without a federal charter (for multi-state business) or a state charter (for in-state business). The only exception being corporations that pre-dated the Revolution. New corporations had to contribute to the common good, such as building roads. Corporations could but own stock in other corporations. If a corporation violated any law, it could be dissolved. Corporations could not own property other that what was needed to achieve its started goal. Those are all restrictions. They were imposed by our Founding Fathers, and mirrored by most, if not all, of the states at the time. |
That is in fact very minor restrictions. And in fact non of these restictions prevented any of the things you say they wanted to prevent. It didn't prevent the large trust from forming.
|
darmokattanagra GROUP: Members POSTS: 250 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm | Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm | >
>
>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he
> |
Nice dream. I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government. I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.
|
What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?
|
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 2:39 pm
Quote: darmokattanagra @ Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am | Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm | Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm | >
>
>
>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he
> |
Nice dream. I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government. I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.
|
What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?
|
His anti-Biblical views - he believes in abortion and redefining marriage. He tries to frame it as getting the government out of our personal choices, but the USA was built on Biblical principles. I'm definitely not saying that this should be a theocracy, but that doesn't mean we "transform" America and throw out our founding principles.
As George Washington so correctly said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”
|
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 2:40 pm
|
|
darmokattanagra GROUP: Members POSTS: 250 |
Report this
Oct. 29 2012, 5:17 pm
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 29 2012, 2:39 pm | Quote: darmokattanagra @ Oct. 29 2012, 9:14 am | Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 28 2012, 8:01 pm | Quote: chad.presley @ Oct. 28 2012, 6:25 pm | >
>
>
>
>Well they both sucked (Bush and OB). I hope we get Gary Johnson as President We need a REAL change. Red vs. Blue is getting real old since all we have is Purple ! Both sides want to take our Liberties. How about we change things in DC ? Doubt it will haappen but one can dream can't he
> |
Nice dream. I definitely don't agree on everything with Johnson's views, but he is, by far, the best overall choice of candidates (who theoretically could win because they're on enough states's ballots to have enough electoral votes) who both wants to follow the Constitution and capable of leading the executive branch of the US government. I did look at Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, but don't think he is even close to capable of leading anyone.
|
What views of Johnson's do you disagree with?
|
His anti-Biblical views - he believes in abortion and redefining marriage. He tries to frame it as getting the government out of our personal choices, but the USA was built on Biblical principles. I'm definitely not saying that this should be a theocracy, but that doesn't mean we "transform" America and throw out our founding principles.
As George Washington so correctly said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”
|
"If the Founding Fathers had wanted a national government controlling eduction, they would have listed it as an enumerated power.
Religion was also extremely important to our Founding Fathers (just read their writings,) but they didn't want to control it via the Federal government."
You should put yourself on your ignore list.
|
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2012, 8:33 am
Anyone remember when Obama ignored the law and forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat? Now we find out that Fiat is looking to move manufacturing some of the lines (including Jeep) over to Europe instead of keeping it in the USA.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-28/marchionne-seen-missing-fiat-sales-target-by-19-billion#p1
Let's see..... billions of taxdollars lost on the bailouts.... cash for clunkers that didn't do anything..... the CEO of GM bragging about almost 70% of all GM vehicles being made outside of the USA (and still getting a bailout)....
|
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2012, 10:39 am
So which one of Obama's fiascos and coverups is the worst? Solyndra? Benghazi? Fast & Furious? Inflation? Energy?
Obviously, I could go on an on and on.... What do you think? (Feel free to add your own list.)
|
|
darmokattanagra GROUP: Members POSTS: 250 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2012, 12:26 pm
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Oct. 30 2012, 8:33 am | >
>Anyone remember when Obama ignored the law and forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat? Now we find out that Fiat is looking to move manufacturing some of the lines (including Jeep) over to Europe instead of keeping it in the USA.
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-28/marchionne-seen-missing-fiat-sales-target-by-19-billion#p1
>
>Let's see..... billions of taxdollars lost on the bailouts.... cash for clunkers that didn't do anything..... the CEO of GM bragging about almost 70% of all GM vehicles being made outside of the USA (and still getting a bailout)....
> |
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-obama-chrysler-sold-italians-china-ame/
"The ad miscasts the government’s role in Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler, and it misrepresents the outcome. Chrysler’s owners had been trying to sell to Italy-based Fiat before Obama took office. The ad ignores the return of American jobs to Chrysler Jeep plants in the United States, and it presents the manufacture of Jeeps in China as a threat, rather than an opportunity to sell cars made in China to Chinese consumers. It strings together facts in a way that presents an wholly inaccurate picture.
We rate the statement Pants on Fire!"
As for Fiat wanting to manufacture some models in Italy, the article you posted doesn't say whether or not it would come at the expense of American jobs. Either way, that's capitalism. "Job creators" like Marchionne should be free to run his business the way he wants, right? If it will make him more money to build cars in Italy then why should he build them in the US? The same goes for the CEO of GM.
Also, both GM and Chrysler have paid back the money they borrowed.
|
|
FleetAdmiral_BamBam GROUP: Members POSTS: 44386 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2012, 1:06 pm
So which Obama should we believe? The one that says that the free market "doesn't work! It has never worked!" (as he did during a speech on 11 December 2011) or that "I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known." as he did during the 16 Oct debate?
|
