Liberals and conservatives....

[rekcaSxT]

The Right to legal representation.

Taxpayers pay for that.

[DFW5Traveler]

The Tea Parties sprang from the Ron Paul Revolution. Small government is the key to an American success. End the Federal Reserve's choke-hold on the economy. End the Federal Income Tax and force the federal government to live within it's means.

I know some may think I'm an ultra-conservative, but I am a top-dead center libertarian, although I don't aspire to a label. I do not believe that the left/right paradigm is any benefit to people of the US. I believe dividing people into left and right or black and white is creating divisive intolerance. By labeling people we promote differential/preferential treatment.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a left and a right side to the Constitution. But it isn't going to happen because there never was a left or right side of the Constitution. I, as well as others, took an oath to defend the Constitution. IMO, that means the Constitution as it was written. The oath means a lot to me and it didn't cease to exist because my contract ended.

In a free society, there will always be lower, middle and upper classes as long as some people aspire to achieve while others are comfortable working for those who have excelled. Face it!!! Some people aspire to mediocrity and that in no way should mean that those who are successful should have to pave the way for those who don't have a personal self interest in success.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

can anything that depends on another person to pay for it be a "right"?

Depends on your point of view -- from the left it appears a yes, from the right a no.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a left and a right side to the Constitution. But it isn't going to happen because there never was a left or right side of the Constitution. I, as well as others, took an oath to defend the Constitution. IMO, that means the Constitution as it was written.

Even those who wrote the Constitution didn't agree on what each part meant lol .... or at the very least they understood that it would be open to interpretation. If it was written in such a clear cut manner then we wouldn't have the need for the Supreme Court to rule on whether laws were or were not constitutional.

[pjorourke]

BTW, Tea Parties aren't just a right wing thing -- they don't have right wingers in Marin County CA, but they do have Tea Partiers: http://www.marinij.com/ci_14630734

But then again, California is all but bankrupt. They make Greece look healthy.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Depends on your point of view -- from the left it appears a yes, from the right a no.

causes all sorts of dislocations.... dontcha think

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Even those who wrote the Constitution didn't agree on what each part meant lol .... or at the very least they understood that it would be open to interpretation. If it was written in such a clear cut manner then we wouldn't have the need for the Supreme Court to rule on whether laws were or were not constitutional.

im worried about you..and all the kids who followed behind you under the same teachers

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

causes all sorts of dislocations.... dontcha think

Looking at things from such divergent points of view could throw your back out.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Even those who wrote the Constitution didn't agree on what each part meant lol .... or at the very least they understood that it would be open to interpretation. If it was written in such a clear cut manner then we wouldn't have the need for the Supreme Court to rule on whether laws were or were not constitutional.

They didn't agree, but they all signed it? Does that make any sense? Every issue that was debated, pre-signing, was agreed to by all parties. They decided it would take a lot to make any changes to the Constitution. Afterwards, they all took an Oath of Office when elected to defend the Constitution. The general consensus was a limited constitutional government where democracy would not trample the rights of the individual.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rekcaSxT

I am not "calling you out" or anything like that just asking if you have some research to show.

They have done all kinda things since the sixties to hide just how much Defense spending really is as a % of GDP


http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

pj hates this chart

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Gotta watch those generalizations,

,

And I have been to one myself. In general it is an older whiter group.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

By the way, did you note that the turn out for the GOP primary was 2X the usual? Don't think the tea parties mean anything huh?

Regards,

And you need to figure out if it was because there was a contested primary with a sitting Senator and Gov or because of the third place Tea Party Debora whats here name.

[rjdiner]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

The Tea Parties sprang from the Ron Paul Revolution. Small government is the key to an American success. End the Federal Reserve's choke-hold on the economy. End the Federal Income Tax and force the federal government to live within it's means.

I know some may think I'm an ultra-conservative, but I am a top-dead center libertarian, although I don't aspire to a label. I do not believe that the left/right paradigm is any benefit to people of the US. I believe dividing people into left and right or black and white is creating divisive intolerance. By labeling people we promote differential/preferential treatment.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a left and a right side to the Constitution. But it isn't going to happen because there never was a left or right side of the Constitution. I, as well as others, took an oath to defend the Constitution. IMO, that means the Constitution as it was written. The oath means a lot to me and it didn't cease to exist because my contract ended.

In a free society, there will always be lower, middle and upper classes as long as some people aspire to achieve while others are comfortable working for those who have excelled. Face it!!! Some people aspire to mediocrity and that in no way should mean that those who are successful should have to pave the way for those who don't have a personal self interest in success.

Nor should a free society permit the successful people from treating the people in the middle as "pavement" and walking all over them. That's clearly been the trend of the past thirty years.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by rjdiner

Nor should a free society permit the successful people from treating the people in the middle as "pavement" and walking all over them. That's clearly been the trend of the past thirty years.

I disagree, I think it started in the late 1800's. Does anyone remember the names of the Robber Barons? If you follow their careers they all got into politics or funded like-minded people to get into politics or policy steering groups. Some even plotted a coup against FDR. Look up Smedley Butler and the Business Plot, a reported political conspiracy in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen. The Robber Barons advocated oligarchy, which is a step between democracy and dictatorship.

[rjdiner]

The trend I referred to is just the most recent, not the first nor will it be the last. If you look back at the ebb and flow of political/economic power over the past 200 years, you will see there were various time the elite (oligarchs) had the upper hand. The political pendulum being what it is then ultimately would swing the other way and the middle class would bring their leaders to power. Those are all trends that generally occur over 20-40 year time frames.
The intent of my post was to point out the trend of the past 30 years has been to concentrate wealth and reduce the middle class. That has clearly taken place. Your original post suggested that the wealthy need not "pave" the way for the "mediocre" (your words). While I agree it is not their job to do that, nor is it their right to treat the "middle class" as "pavement" and trample them (my words).


[quote=DFW5Traveler;164083]I disagree, I think it started in the late 1800's. Does anyone remember the names of the Robber Barons? If you follow their careers they all got into politics or funded like-minded people to get into politics or policy steering groups. Some even plotted a coup against FDR. Look up Smedley Butler and the Business Plot, a reported political conspiracy in 1933 which involved wealthy businessmen. The Robber Barons advocated oligarchy, which is a step between democracy and dictatorship

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by rjdiner

The trend I referred to is just the most recent, not the first nor will it be the last. If you look back at the ebb and flow of political/economic power over the past 200 years, you will see there were various time the elite (oligarchs) had the upper hand. The political pendulum being what it is then ultimately would swing the other way and the middle class would bring their leaders to power. Those are all trends that generally occur over 20-40 year time frames.
The intent of my post was to point out the trend of the past 30 years has been to concentrate wealth and reduce the middle class. That has clearly taken place. Your original post suggested that the wealthy need not "pave" the way for the "mediocre" (your words). While I agree it is not their job to do that, nor is it their right to treat the "middle class" as "pavement" and trample them (my words).

I don't believe all of the upper-class people are oligarch leaning. Some actually are true patriots. The last 30 years have been part of a cycle of a few gaining more power. The cycle started a long time ago and every few decades, the people challenge the monopolies created, e.g., Standard Oil and Bell Telephone. They break up the monopoly power and the cycle begins again.

Look at Bill Gates, he's pouring money into issues that where funded by JD Rockerfeller, a Robber Baron, in the early 1900's, i.e., eugenics, or planned parenthood. Let's take Jeff Immult for example. He is curently an advisor in the White House. Why would anyone agree to that arrangment? Follow GE's money now, they recently were awarded a lot of money for wind energy where the equipment will be built in China. Or how about health care, Immult is pouring money into electronic records. Who benefits?

Not all of the upper-crust use the lower and middle classes. However, there are those that see the rising stars in the middle as direct competition. Through policy steering groups, or special interest groups they will lobby to get those stars knocked on their proverbial asses.

I do see greed coming from some and I have to ask, how much is enough, but I still believe in the free market. Those that get too greedy will fall if they stop propping up the "too-big-to-fail" crowd. Have you asked yourself who really benefitted from the bank bailouts and who was involved? The free market would have let those banks fail as they should have.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

They didn't agree, but they all signed it? Does that make any sense?

Sure that makes sense. But the Constitution was left open to interpretation; the devil is always in the details not in the broad overview of the goal they were aiming for. Then of course the 14th amendment completely muddied the waters; but it too is part of the Constitution just as much as any of the original Articles are. The genius of the document is that was put together in a way that allowed it to serve the country with minimal changes over 225+ years that have been filled with changes on our society.