All this is going to do is sully the word "family"...

[JimC]

All the fundie sex-fearing organizations with "family" in the name are doing a good enough job of ruining the word, thankyouverymuch.

Lots of that in Oz

When I hear the phrase "family values", I reach for my Luger...

[Svartalf]

I don't know - but, I just think "enemy" is a strong word. I think government tends to be overly bureaucratic - and I think that quite often government workers lack a sense of urgency that things really need to get done "today." It's more like "what doesn't get done today gets done tomorrow, no sense agonizing about it..." Things back up, and people have to wait....and wait.... and wait....in Casablanca....

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

I'm only a poor corrupt official.

Shut up you two, or get me that DVD pronto, it's still lacking in my collections, to my great anguish.

[Callan]

I don't know - but, I just think "enemy" is a strong word. I think government tends to be overly bureaucratic - and I think that quite often government workers lack a sense of urgency that things really need to get done "today." It's more like "what doesn't get done today gets done tomorrow, no sense agonizing about it..." Things back up, and people have to wait....and wait.... and wait....in Casablanca....

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

I'm only a poor corrupt official.

Shut up you two, or get me that DVD pronto, it's still lacking in my collections, to my great anguish.

No Amazon in France?
Ce n'est pas possible!

[Svartalf]

Hey, we have Amazon, I'm the guy who's got a court order forbidding him from using any amazon compatible means of payment... cash is all I'm entitled to, and the amount I am allowed to handle makes budgeting that kind of thing hard, even though I theoretically have the money (and could theoretically spend myself naked and homeless on Amazon if they let me access it)

[Seth]

I don't know - but, I just think "enemy" is a strong word. I think government tends to be overly bureaucratic - and I think that quite often government workers lack a sense of urgency that things really need to get done "today." It's more like "what doesn't get done today gets done tomorrow, no sense agonizing about it..." Things back up, and people have to wait....and wait.... and wait....in Casablanca....

Government is, as the Founders said, a necessary evil. It's like fire, it's useful when carefully controlled and not given too much fuel (money) but when the people lose control of it, it becomes a very dangerous enemy of liberty. When that happens, people should starve it of fuel (money) to bring it back under control, or douse it completely if it's uncontrollable.

[MrJonno]

Politicians talking about 'families' always worries me a lot more than when they talk about government. Family is usually code for bigotry

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know - but, I just think "enemy" is a strong word. I think government tends to be overly bureaucratic - and I think that quite often government workers lack a sense of urgency that things really need to get done "today." It's more like "what doesn't get done today gets done tomorrow, no sense agonizing about it..." Things back up, and people have to wait....and wait.... and wait....in Casablanca....

Government is, as the Founders said, a necessary evil. It's like fire, it's useful when carefully controlled and not given too much fuel (money) but when the people lose control of it, it becomes a very dangerous enemy of liberty. When that happens, people should starve it of fuel (money) to bring it back under control, or douse it completely if it's uncontrollable.

Just a point of pedantry....One person said that - Thomas Paine. There is no such thing as "the Founders." There were lots of people involved in the break-away from England, and the creation of a new nation. Use of the term "the Founders" irritates me because it creates a false picture that these guys all shared the same view and had a single, common intent or view. The "intent of the Founders," and "the Founders said," etc. are almost never correct phrasings, since the men who make up the group of folks that founded the US almost never shared a single common intent and each of them had disparate views on almost every issue. "A" founder (small "f") said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." No group of robed, mythical "Founders" said anything of the kind.

[Ian]

100% correct on that.

I also get a little pissed off when people (often politicians) try to claim that their views are more in line with the intentions of the founders. Hell, the reason the US has a bicameral legistlature in the first place is because of something called the Connecticut Compromise. I found it particularly grating when a bunch of Teabagger rubes in the current Congress started off their session by reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House, as if to remind everyone else that the Congress had been losing sight of it. But they neglected to read the oringinal laws, which included things like the Three-Fifths Compromise...

[Coito ergo sum]

100% correct on that.

I also get a little pissed off when people (often politicians) try to claim that their views are more in line with the intentions of the founders. Hell, the reason the US has a bicameral legistlature in the first place is because of something called the Connecticut Compromise. I found it particularly grating when a bunch of Teabagger rubes in the current Congress started off their session by reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House, as if to remind everyone else that the Congress had been losing sight of it. But they neglected to read the oringinal laws, which included things like the Three-Fifths Compromise...

In all fairness, they read it as amended, which is probably the best way to read it because there are 27 Amendments, and there is no point in reading what was the case in 1800, when that portion was amended.

But, I will say that a bunch of teabaggers reading the constitution in Congress was a stupid waste of time and money, and was merely a political show. It was grating because most of them just think the Constitution means whatever they happen to want it to mean.

[Warren Dew]

But, I will say that a bunch of teabaggers reading the constitution in Congress was a stupid waste of time and money, and was merely a political show. It was grating because most of them just think the Constitution means whatever they happen to want it to mean.

To the contrary, while it's true of most of Congress - most federal employees in general - are more than happy to ignore it, the Tea Party caucus actually does pay significant attention to what the U.S. constitution actually says. Opening the session with a reading of it helps to remind the members of Congress that they're only supposed to pass laws that are authorized by the constitution, which is a good thing.

[Seth]

100% correct on that.

I also get a little pissed off when people (often politicians) try to claim that their views are more in line with the intentions of the founders. Hell, the reason the US has a bicameral legistlature in the first place is because of something called the Connecticut Compromise. I found it particularly grating when a bunch of Teabagger rubes in the current Congress started off their session by reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House, as if to remind everyone else that the Congress had been losing sight of it. But they neglected to read the oringinal laws, which included things like the Three-Fifths Compromise...

Evidently you have no understanding of why the Compromise exists or why it was agreed to. You really should educate yourself before you manifest your ignorance further.

[Seth]

I don't know - but, I just think "enemy" is a strong word. I think government tends to be overly bureaucratic - and I think that quite often government workers lack a sense of urgency that things really need to get done "today." It's more like "what doesn't get done today gets done tomorrow, no sense agonizing about it..." Things back up, and people have to wait....and wait.... and wait....in Casablanca....

Government is, as the Founders said, a necessary evil. It's like fire, it's useful when carefully controlled and not given too much fuel (money) but when the people lose control of it, it becomes a very dangerous enemy of liberty. When that happens, people should starve it of fuel (money) to bring it back under control, or douse it completely if it's uncontrollable.

Just a point of pedantry....One person said that - Thomas Paine. There is no such thing as "the Founders." There were lots of people involved in the break-away from England, and the creation of a new nation. Use of the term "the Founders" irritates me because it creates a false picture that these guys all shared the same view and had a single, common intent or view. The "intent of the Founders," and "the Founders said," etc. are almost never correct phrasings, since the men who make up the group of folks that founded the US almost never shared a single common intent and each of them had disparate views on almost every issue. "A" founder (small "f") said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." No group of robed, mythical "Founders" said anything of the kind.

You might want to pick up a copy of "The Original Constitution - What it Actually Said and Meant" by Robert G. Natelson.

It'll improve your understanding of the Founders and what they said and meant considerably.

[Ian]

100% correct on that.

I also get a little pissed off when people (often politicians) try to claim that their views are more in line with the intentions of the founders. Hell, the reason the US has a bicameral legistlature in the first place is because of something called the Connecticut Compromise. I found it particularly grating when a bunch of Teabagger rubes in the current Congress started off their session by reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House, as if to remind everyone else that the Congress had been losing sight of it. But they neglected to read the oringinal laws, which included things like the Three-Fifths Compromise...

Evidently you have no understanding of why the Compromise exists or why it was agreed to. You really should educate yourself before you manifest your ignorance further.

How do you figure that, o wise one? And to which compromise were you referring? Care to debate Oliver Crowmell and his influence on the shaping of the US Constitution, including the Connecticut Compromise? It'll bore everyone else to tears, but I'll be happy to educate you.

And this coming from the guy who said the White House was burned during the Civil War!

Besides, I think you missed the point entirely. I never talked about why the Compromise exists in the first place. The key word is compromise. It exists because there wasn't some grand, unified vision that the founders all shared. They negotiated and played politics with each other as much as anyone today. And the document they came up with has since been amended many times; the greatness of it lies in its flexibility.

[Seth]

100% correct on that.

I also get a little pissed off when people (often politicians) try to claim that their views are more in line with the intentions of the founders. Hell, the reason the US has a bicameral legistlature in the first place is because of something called the Connecticut Compromise. I found it particularly grating when a bunch of Teabagger rubes in the current Congress started off their session by reading aloud the Constitution on the floor of the House, as if to remind everyone else that the Congress had been losing sight of it. But they neglected to read the oringinal laws, which included things like the Three-Fifths Compromise...

Evidently you have no understanding of why the Compromise exists or why it was agreed to. You really should educate yourself before you manifest your ignorance further.

How do you figure that, o wise one? And to which compromise were you referring? Care to debate Oliver Crowmell and his influence on the shaping of the US Constitution, including the Connecticut Compromise? It'll bore everyone else to tears, but I'll be happy to educate you.

And this coming from the guy who said the White House was burned during the Civil War!

Besides, I think you missed the point entirely. I never talked about why the Compromise exists in the first place. The key word is compromise. It exists because there wasn't some grand, unified vision that the founders all shared. They negotiated and played politics with each other as much as anyone today. And the document they came up with has since been amended many times; the greatness of it lies in its flexibility.

Sorry for being vague, I was referring to the Three-fifths Compromise. And you're quite right, they were "playing politics" because that's how it works. The Three-fifths Compromise was how they managed to get the Constitution ratified in the face of stiff pro and anti-slavery resistance. It's purpose was to dilute the power of the slave-holding states in Congress, thus moving towards abolition, while still getting those states to agree to ratify the Constitution.

And yes, the Constitution is "flexible," but only in one way: We, the People may choose to amend it, as we've done a relatively small number of times since it was ratified. But it's not so flexible as the Progressives would like everyone to believe it is. It's a "living document," but it's not a cancer that can grow and metastasize out of all recognizable form based on how this, that or the other administration or Congress chooses to "interpret" it in a frenzy of rationalization and self-serving expediency.

There is only ONE WAY to lawfully and ethically reinterpret what the Founders intended for our system of government, and that's by formally amending the document. All other "interpretations" of a "living Constitution" by any process or person is illegitimate and a violation of the compact under which the document was ratified by the states.

[Lozzer]

Government = family? THITS SOCIALIZISM