I like this Cruz fella.

[dutchwrangler]

The Constitution is fine but some of the amendments need some work so that they are clearer.

The problem with our government at this time, and the one thing that Romney might have helped improve a little, is that it is not run like a business but is instead run like a charity with an endless supply of donors.

It may appear to be fine, but again, unless one signs a written document, it is not legally binding upon non-signatories. It is claimed that the constitution derives it's power from the "consent" of the people. However, there is no likelyhood that 100% of the people consent to something they did not sign. Thus, without unanimous consent of ALL the people, it has no validity and thus can not be binding upon those who do not consent. So an essential of free government is unanimous consent by the governed. Yet those who did not sign (give their consent) are coerced to support it against their will.

The only legitimate purpose of government is for it to protect the rights of the individual. Everything the central government is doing beyond protecting life, liberty and property is a usurption of power from the people (the sovereigns). When government usurps power not delegated to it by the people it is no longer a government by consent but a government of tyranny. Which is exactly what we have today. No political party supporter who believes in free government is going to advocate for the return of power to the people. They will advance the idea that government is to be used as a means of achieving their agenda and coerce those who do not consent to obey their "laws". This is not freedom but slavery. Running it like a business or not makes no difference in the fact that a portion of the people are forced and compelled to live by laws that they never agreed upon by virtue of signing the constituional document. No man is bound to a written document until he signs it. It is immoral and wrong to demand anyone not a signatory of a contract to be forced to follow that contract's directives.

Freedom?... not so much.

 

[RickN]

It ain't a business. The idea behind the American Revolution was Liberty. Not a list of laws to be followed by each citizen. Not coercing a free man to give up his wages before he ever sees them. Not Using those funds to provide for other countries. There was a time when our government, on the principle of fairness, refused to allocate tax money for natural disaster relief to states, because it is unjust to confiscate taxes from a state's citizens, then use those funds elsewhere.
Why is it so hard to understand that the "cult" behind Paul (and others like him) are simply seeking a standard-bearer for the group that loves liberty? Have we become such a bunch of dependents and safety-seekers that even "conservatives" don't mind a bit of taxation here, some surveilance there, maybe a little censorship, and some overseas alliances are OK, as long as it's with folks we like. Let's give up our freedoms to choose who we hire or do business with, in the name of equality, and make some "common-sense" laws about guns and borders.

We have become, Rs and Ds - socialists. We accepted socialized medicine long before anyone heard of Obama. The State educates (indoctrinates) our children, and tells us where and how to build on our own? land.Are earnings are collected at the point of a gun to be distributed back to us in our old age, because the State does such a good job of managing money. Congress has shirked it's obligation to coin money, and given that public trust to a bunch of privateers. People that actually produce have their wages stolen to provide for those who don't, and Blues and Reds alike approve, albeit in different degrees.

I get tired of folks comparing politician X with Hitler - at least with National Socialism, the producers were also allowed to benefit from their labor. Today, you can work hard, but if you're the wrong color, sex or have earned too much money, you can't benefit from the programs you yourself have helped to provide.

Want some Kool-Aid?

Yawn!!!!

All that is nice in theory and worked for awhile a couple hundred years ago, then the world grew more complicated. And yes I do believe the government should be run as a business with the product being the happiness of the people. A good business looks to cut out as much waste as possible, hire only as many people as it really needs, and use only systems that produce the best product in the most effective way possible. Our government does none of those things.

 

[dutchwrangler]

If the government is going to be run as or like a business then it needs to derive it's funding similarly as a business... by people voluntarily providing those funds instead of coercively threatening and stealing the people's money (property, one of the things legitimate government is required to protect). Want government services? Write a check to them to obtain those services. But don't coerce those who don't want those service to write a check without their consent. It's immoral to do so...

 

[mons meg]

It may appear to be fine, but again, unless one signs a written document, it is not legally binding upon non-signatories. It is claimed that the constitution derives it's power from the "consent" of the people. However, there is no likelyhood that 100% of the people consent to something they did not sign. Thus, without unanimous consent of ALL the people, it has no validity and thus can not be binding upon those who do not consent. So an essential of free government is unanimous consent by the governed. Yet those who did not sign (give their consent) are coerced to support it against their will.

The only legitimate purpose of government is for it to protect the rights of the individual. Everything the central government is doing beyond protecting life, liberty and property is a usurption of power from the people (the sovereigns). When government usurps power not delegated to it by the people it is no longer a government by consent but a government of tyranny. Which is exactly what we have today. No political party supporter who believes in free government is going to advocate for the return of power to the people. They will advance the idea that government is to be used as a means of achieving their agenda and coerce those who do not consent to obey their "laws". This is not freedom but slavery. Running it like a business or not makes no difference in the fact that a portion of the people are forced and compelled to live by laws that they never agreed upon by virtue of signing the constituional document. No man is bound to a written document until he signs it. It is immoral and wrong to demand anyone not a signatory of a contract to be forced to follow that contract's directives.

Freedom?... not so much.

Unanimous consent? Are you serious? Never mind the obvious fact that nobody alive today ever signed off on the Constitution.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Yawn!!!!

All that is nice in theory and worked for awhile a couple hundred years ago, then the world grew more complicated. And yes I do believe the government should be run as a business with the product being the happiness of the people. A good business looks to cut out as much waste as possible, hire only as many people as it really needs, and use only systems that produce the best product in the most effective way possible. Our government does none of those things.

Time always changes. Every second. People don't. Truths and falsehoods don't.

To be honest, with the ever growing police state we live in we are without a doubt enjoying more safety. Technology is helping us remain safe also. We don't need arms to protect ourselves with cameras on every street corner and the po-po only a 911 call away. I concede that when I run up to Canada every couple of weeks without my arms I don't feel my safety is threatened since few Canadians bear arms, especially CC or OC which my friends and relatives here find unfathomable to comprehend.

With times being safer... we don't need arms. Period. Ever.

Now, how is that "times change" mantra going to keep us free from tyranny? Or that business (government) from enslaving the people?

Times change. Self evident truths never do...

 

[dutchwrangler]

Unanimous consent? Are you serious? Never mind the obvious fact that nobody alive today ever signed off on the Constitution.

Your father signs a contract with a bank for a loan. Then he passes away. Are you bound to pay the loan? Did you sign the contract?

Moral truths are self evident. Think...

 

[mons meg]

What I think, is that you are espousing something just short of anarchy. I'm more sympathetic than most to the notion that government should only exist to preserve the rights of the people, but how do you expect any government to function based on an "opt-in" requirement?

 

[RickN]

Your father signs a contract with a bank for a loan. Then he passes away. Are you bound to pay the loan? Did you sign the contract?

Moral truths are self evident. Think...

Through the years I have noticed you seem to have a problem with government in general. If this is true may I suggest you might be happier living in Western Sahara or Antarctica? Neither has a real government so you can have all the "liberty" you want. Of course you will freeze you butt off in one and have to fight with those who's idea of liberty differs from yours in the other, but at least you will not have to deal with a government.

 

[TedKennedy]

Yawn!!!!

All that is nice in theory and worked for awhile a couple hundred years ago, then the world grew more complicated. And yes I do believe the government should be run as a business with the product being the happiness of the people. A good business looks to cut out as much waste as possible, hire only as many people as it really needs, and use only systems that produce the best product in the most effective way possible. Our government does none of those things.

Yep, maybe if we get the "right' folks in there, they can re-distribute our earnings better, and secure a safe future for us and our families. And if they protect the "right" nations, maybe send our kids or grandkids off to fight in the Holy Land! Awesome! I see your point now, and feel much better about the future of our country.

 

[ez bake]

The only one I bash is Ron Paul and that is because he is a flake. Always has been for as long as I can remember (even back when I lived in his district) and he always will be. The problem is that he has his own little cult and that cult seems to be transferring to his son. While Rand is better then his dad, he is just another political type and the jury is still out on him. Cruz too but he does not have a cult, just some people watching him.

You keep posting a bunch of words without saying anything. Why is he a flake? Is it because you say so, or do you have any reason or scale with which to measure/prove said flakiness?

Name a person in congress who isn't "just another political type" or at the very least, who is better than Cruz or Rand. If you can't, then you're pretty much always calling out the two folks who happen to be the lesser of two evils (which goes directly against what you posted earlier in your support of Romney).

I'm just saying, your mental gymnastics to prove why you support politician A while disliking politician B are like... "12-year old Chinese girl in the Olympics" impressive man.

Whatever helps you sleep at night man. I'm no fan of politicians either, but I recognize the folks who are there to do the job they were hired to do.

Love them or hate them, you still have to take note where they're actually doing what we paid them to do (that is in fact, very uncommon on capitol hill).