Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on December 27, 2006, 08:31:39 AM
-
Just to give people a choice who are real individualists and not socialist ant people like mac voters...
Roll back all laws to those prior to 1912.
Make sure that the supreme court does not expand the constitution but that it only interprets it according to the founders original intent.
simple stuff really.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Make sure that the supreme court does not expand the constitution but that it only interprets it according to the founders original intent.
When I hear someone say this or even when I think it myself I wonder.. Was there some kind of super morality, best of intentions, perfectly politically farsighted, utmost best for the country enzymes in the food back when the founding fathers figured out the perfect way to run a country for 10,000 years?
And what do we have to do to bring that food back to the market?
-
please explain what is wrong with the government idea that they founded back then or that does not apply to today. The ten commandments and the golden rule were written even before that... how sir are they outdated?
The constitution does allow for modification of the bill of rights you know... just not through the supreme court.
lazs
-
I would vote for Lazs, but i am British.
Shame. :p
-
you could be on my cabinet.... you wouldn't do anything but that would make you worth more than most previous members of cabinets.
The accent would be a problem.. just nod and look wise. You could speak at womens groups tho.. they eat that brit accent stuff up.
hows mom?
lazs
-
What I'm saying is where's the present day Franklins, Jeffersons and Washingtons?
Do they exist but we glorify the founding fathers so much that we can't recognize their faults ... so no one can really matchup in our minds?
Or has the government just completely turned into a fraternity of selfserving taxpayer freeloaders?
And if so, why didn't our all seeing founding fathers see that?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
What I'm saying is where's the present day Franklins, Jeffersons and Washingtons?
Do they exist but we glorify the founding fathers so much that we can't recognize their faults ... so no one can really matchup in our minds?
Or has the government just completely turned into a fraternity of selfserving taxpayer freeloaders?
And if so, why didn't our all seeing founding fathers see that?
men of equal caliber are serving the country today. the media of the day was far harsher than our own. the pageant themselves were not above mudslinging and trolling in the local press attempting to get a rise out of their political opponents. I don't recall any period other than the foundational where the secretary of the treasury was killed in a duel by the vice president. we are tame by comparrison.
-
Vote Lazs in 2008! :aok:cool:
-
I often wonder if men like Ben Franklin could make it in today's political arena. Or if his obvious assets would be overshadowed by tabloid stories of how many women he slept with, how much he drinks, etc. I also wonder, conversely, how many of today's politicians would survive the political climate of THEIR times, when ability counted for much and there were no cameras to smile and wave at.
Kinda makes you wonder if we've really progressed after all.
Btw, I'd vote for lazs. :) Not saying he wouldnt be impeached within his first year, but I'd vote for him lol.
-
how much he drinks?
canada wouldnt exist if it wasnt for alcohol.
so i cant see why being a bit of a boozer is a problem :lol
-
And..................
Thats supposed to be an argument FOR drinking??
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
And..................
Thats supposed to be an argument FOR drinking??
no, just for drinking politicians.
-
I'd vote for you. Maybe it would work, maybe not. One thing is for sure, it would be fun and wacky.
Question, though... The big red nuclear button--would you at least touch it once a day?
-
What're ya running for lazs? President? King? I'll vote for ya unless Newt throws his hat in the ring.
-
Originally posted by Ball
I would vote for Lazs, but i am British.
I'd vote for Lazs, but I am an American.
-
hmm... some unexpected replies.
I that TR was our last real great president. I would very much aspire to his style.
Ben Franklin was not one of my favorite founders... I really am more of a Jeffersonian.
mossgood... still don't see your point. the founders did forsee what would happen if we allowed government to grow beyond what they had envisioned... they were absolutely correct and we are paying the price for not listening to them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mossgood... still don't see your point. the founders did forsee what would happen if we allowed government to grow beyond what they had envisioned... they were absolutely correct and we are paying the price for not listening to them.
lazs
The point was not about them not getting it right. It was an observation about them being glorified and whether or not we have the same caliber now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Make sure that the supreme court does not expand the constitution but that it only interprets it according to the founders original intent.
lazs
In that case you want the reference to God taken back out of the constitution?...I'm with ya Lazs!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
In that case you want the reference to God taken back out of the constitution?...I'm with ya Lazs!
The Supreme Court amended the Constitution? I know that they have tried to alter it by interpretation but I wasn't aware they ever changed it's actual wording. Can you be specific?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
When I hear someone say this or even when I think it myself I wonder.. Was there some kind of super morality, best of intentions, perfectly politically farsighted, utmost best for the country enzymes in the food back when the founding fathers figured out the perfect way to run a country for 10,000 years?
And what do we have to do to bring that food back to the market?
:rofl :rofl
That was brilliant <>
-
mossgood... ahh... I see your point. Do you not think that some ideas are so simple and true and advanced that nothing ever comes along to improve them?
How much clasical music has been written lately? certainly there are composers that rival the greats but... it's been done. There are political writers that rival the founders but the great ideas have allready been taken.. they can only polish.
Rock and roll... art medias and styles... nothing to top the clasics...
Were all these people so much better than what we have today or simply the first to discover these truths... these universal great things? I would say the latter.
If there never were a U.S.. and the revolution.. then one would have to happen... different great people would have caused it but...
Like rock and roll and classical art and music... it had to happen.
I also think that the current way we are running the country stifles any real good men from aspiring to running the country. Teddy Roosevelt would not want to run today... could not win if he did.
Roll back the laws and government to 1912 and watch the great men come out of the woodwork. There is no place for them today.
lazs
-
As for religion and god... I would say that the government could establish no religion nor persecute one.
lazs
-
Rock and roll... art medias and styles... nothing to top the clasics...
Don't automatically assume that because it's old that it's good.
The founding fathers gave us the most basic forms of socialism, but they tried to alleviate the pain of it somewhat.
I think it's ironic how great the founding fathers are viewed.
-
lazs2 has my vote. Can I be part of your Ministry of Defence or as we call it DoD?:aok :aok :aok
-
laser... you have a very strict interpretation of socialism. You also appear to not want any protection at all (other than muscle) for your human rights. It is not socialism to expect payment for a service.
also... not all good things are old or all old things good... but most if not all of the real good ideas have allready been thought of by now.
red26... sure but.. it doesn't pay much.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ben Franklin was not one of my favorite founders...
"Beer is proof God exists and wants us to be happy." --- Benjamin Franklin
Not one of your favorites? -- commie
-
I think it's a good idea, but I have a couple of questions.
I think the 19th amendment is a Good Thing. How would the Lazs party deal with this? (Women being given the vote)
How about the 24th? It's a federalist amendment, but it was a response to a real problem. Do you think losing it would create disenfranchisement or was it something that no longer has a purpose?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
laser... you have a very strict interpretation of socialism.
I have a very basic definitiom of socialism, because in its true form, socialism is very basic.
If you think it is right for the government to take someone's property without the owner's choice, then you are a socialist.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think it's a good idea, but I have a couple of questions.
I think the 19th amendment is a Good Thing. How would the Lazs party deal with this? (Women being given the vote)
How about the 24th? It's a federalist amendment, but it was a response to a real problem. Do you think losing it would create disenfranchisement or was it something that no longer has a purpose?
Obviously there are some things that were added as amendments to the Constitution to change our ways of thinking about things, not to counter anything that was spelled out previously. The Constitution did not previously establish poll taxes, those were done at the local and state levels as a way of providing loopholes to short circuit the 14th amendment. Given the social pressures that have built up since then to oppose such actions, and given that it never had Constitutional sanction to start with, I really think the 24th is redundant now. I'd have to say the same of the 19th. Once women legally established the right to vote, it became a part of our culture. Removing the amendment forcing us to let them vote would not change the reality at this point.
I would like to see Amendments 17 and 20 kept, if only to make transitions easier and prevent imbalances in representation.
-
red26... sure but.. it doesn't pay much.
by Lazs2
HE HE Im a Security Officer I dont mind low pay.:aok
-
Just as the good sticks could, if they had their own country - back in the single Main Arena, clobber the other countries populated by all the lemmings put together, a single state based on those timeless ideas would shift the tide as well as Skuzzy's nationwide from-the-roots method.
Lazs, do you think one of these two is better than the other?
-
laser... you are quite young I would guess. There are many ways to take your property from you without your consent that are not socialism. It may be forfiet because of harm you have caused or debts that you owe. If you had no protection of law... you would be judged against without your being even contacted and if you lost... it would be just to take everything you own.
So go ahead... don't support the legal system... I would just publish your name in the paper. If it was worth it to you then you would pay to support it. It would be your choice. My guess is that your view of socialism is not tempered by you ever having to be on your own... I mean really on your own.
chairboy... I am not a fan of women voting... while there are some that can do so in a rational manner... most are not suited. Think about it... we spend the first 15 or so years of our lives trying to get loose form our mothers (modern kids maybe the first 30 or so) and then..... we allow em to vote and run our lives again?
Still... it would not be my call... neither would the 24th... there are mechanisms for amending.
To me... amendments should only be made to protect citizens from government power.
-
moot... not sure what you mean. In the arena idea.... many if not most of all the really good sticks I knew had no aspirations of "winning" the war. They were and are individualists. They would have no real affect on the arena but still affect individual fights or furballs. In some sense...they affect invasions... if they each kill 6 or so attackers before they die... then most invasions fail.
But what was the question anyway?
lazs
-
Repeal of laws post-1912 means child labor, unsafe factories and working conditions, 70-hour work weeks. You're in favor of that?
Teddy Roosevelt advocated government oversight of industry (railroads, food and drug). He was a strong conservationist and set aside large amounts of federal land for parks and reserves, and established the U.S. Forest Service. (I think it's unlikely he would support drilling in ANWAR - and he would probably be going after the oil companies for those missed lease/royalty payments for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico).
-
It's sort of a loaded question; I think it's apples to oranges, but I wanted to see your point of view anyway.
Skuzzy's idea is an alternative to the election process, where the candidates have a neutral platform to broadcast their plan and/or ideas straight to the public, and among other things, set their word in stone.
The other idea isn't conquering anything, I'm thinking of something like the Free State Project.
The proverbial invasion here is the inaction to constitutional erosions etc, so a single state would probably stand a better chance if it gathered like minded people. The analogy is that the lone sticks would improve their odds if they stuck together rather than sporadically kill off small fractions of the horde at a time, i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
-
hardtack... I am saying that TR was the last good pres... he was not god.
He was wrong about federal regulation... I would get rid of it. I would buy kosher food for instance. no one dies from it.. they do die from federaly regulated food and drugs.
child labor? You don't like? don't allow certain parts of it in your state. truth is... the morality of the people judges how these things would go.... if you abolished all child labor laws we would not go back in any event. the news would have a field day.
Unsafe factories? how long could they stay in existence with a strong court system? they would be sued into oblivion. No federal action needed other than protection from frivolous lawsuits in all things.
TR and conservation.... He simply took government land and said it couldn't be sold... he wanted it to be used by all people.. have you ever seen a list of the animals he would kill on a hunt? He would allow for the drilling for oil on public lands in my opinion.
lazs
-
moot.. I am not familiar with skuzzies idea of "direct action" I am not for democracy without severe limitations based on individual rights tho.
as for a free state.... I believe the the founders meant for any state that could not get along with the government that it was their right and duty to suceed.
lazs
-
Thanks for answering, I PMed you something.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chairboy... I am not a fan of women voting... while there are some that can do so in a rational manner... most are not suited.
Bzzzzt. I'm out. Enfranchisement is the cornerstone of liberty.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. No Lazs, I won't be fooled again.
-
Originally posted by hardtack
Repeal of laws post-1912 means child labor, unsafe factories and working conditions, 70-hour work weeks. You're in favor of that?
child labour- so a few more forward thinking 11 - 14 year olds gopher for a relative, or a friends relative on weekends. i doubt it would become widespread abuse.
"
If you think it is right for the government to take someone's property without the owner's choice, then you are a socialist."
so you want to pay for freedom and stability on a per use basis?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hardtack... I am saying that TR was the last good pres... he was not god.
He was wrong about federal regulation... I would get rid of it. I would buy kosher food for instance. no one dies from it.. they do die from federaly regulated food and drugs.
child labor? You don't like? don't allow certain parts of it in your state. truth is... the morality of the people judges how these things would go.... if you abolished all child labor laws we would not go back in any event. the news would have a field day.
Unsafe factories? how long could they stay in existence with a strong court system? they would be sued into oblivion. No federal action needed other than protection from frivolous lawsuits in all things.
TR and conservation.... He simply took government land and said it couldn't be sold... he wanted it to be used by all people.. have you ever seen a list of the animals he would kill on a hunt? He would allow for the drilling for oil on public lands in my opinion.
lazs
Agree TR was not a god, but a good president nevertheless. Agree in particular with your statement about the morality of the people determines how things would go. Which is exactly why the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 came into being. Things had gotten so bad, the morality of the people demanded it. All you will accomplish with your plan is force us to march over the same gound, ground we covered years ago. Why do you think anything would go any differently than it did before?
Also, I don't share your confidence in the legal system and redress through lawsuit awards. For example, the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince Edward Sound in 1989. The resulting environmental damage caused serious harm to 34,000 Alaskan fisherman, who sued Exxon and won a $5 billion award in 1994. Exxon has not paid anything yet (almost 20 years after the event) and continues to drag the issue out in courts. Most recently, the size of the jury's original punitive award was cut in half Exxon Valdez damages cut in half (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/22/business/main2293352.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2293352)
I don't have anything against TR's killing of animals. I think he had a great respect and appreciation of Nature. I think you are wrong about his attitude towards the oil companies - I think he would be as furious with them today as he was with the great railroad monopolies. Did you know he was in favor of the federal government setting maximum railroad rates? The Hepburn Act of 1906 gave the Interstate Commerce Commission power over railroad rates.
I think he was a great man. A clear-thinking, rugged individualist who fought for balance, restraint and oversight when he saw what a serious threat unregulated capitalism could pose to the overall health of our Nation. I don't think expanding the reach of the federal government was a first choice as policy, but more of a reluctant conclusion on his part.
-
chairboy... my thoughts on women voting have nothing to do with it. It wouldn't be up to me.
hardtack.. I don't feel you are thinking it through. You would not be covering the same ground again except in the most basic of ways. What I am talking about is a rolling back and re-assesment of these laws... What we have now is decades of foolish social engineering that most people can see is not working and was a bad idea. the expansion of basic human rights to include entitlements to socialistic levels over decades.
Hopefully we would think things through a little better this time and not go quite so far. But.. we can't roll em back.. we have to amputate and start over. There would be no more (or less) outcry from people if you pinched down the tit or took it right out of their mouth... might as well just rip the bandaid off as fast as we can and get the pain over with. we screwed up and are getting worse.
As for the exxon incident... how did a huge government help those fishermen? seems that they would be better off under my system where the spotlight would be on them instead of the government getting their pound of flesh first.
TR would not want to deprive the people of the oil on public lands... I believe that he would make sure the people got treated fairly tho... the land was public then the oil companies would pay the public and.... they would guarentee the safeguard of the land.
We both agree TR was a great man and great pres. I think we could both agree that he would not welcome the size and scope of government today.
lazs