Why would a "global community" be scary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
"From each according to his ability..." worked well for the American Indians and the early colonies.
|
Why would a "global community" be scary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
"From each according to his ability..." worked well for the American Indians and the early colonies.
You are wrong on both counts. There can be no global community without global government. The further government is from the people, them more corrupt and inept and tyrannical it becomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I guess I can't say about the Native American, but Communism didn't work at all in the early colonies. Those that tried it starved. They abandoned that idea the second year.
The early colonies mimicked the Indians. If it didn't work, the fault lay with the colonists. It worked for the Indians for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
The lifestyle of the Indians is way different from modern life. It's comparing apples and oranges. You cannot prescribe for us what works for tiny hunter-gatherer units compared to our huge system.
Its funny how each of the many times Communism fails, they always say it just hasn't been tried with the right group of people yet.
Thank god no one is advocating communism so you don't have to worry about that.
"Tiny"? Of course "tiny" comparing thousands of them to the millions in the U.S. now. It doesn't work for us because we are greedy individualists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyprine
Any time the fox guards the hen house, you will be missing your chickens, and that is the weakness of capitalism.
As far as spreading the wealth, ask a guy who lost his factory job to a worker in another country, making less money, or an American company that exploits its overseas workers (Wal-mart, come to mind as they get large tax breaks, to build in a community, then leave before the taxes come due)
Why should the wealthiest 1% tell me when to work, where, and how much I make like a serf, and then lay me off before Christmas.
Finally, since you can bailout a greedy son-of-gun, why can't you bailout the ones who suffer for it.
Spread the wealth sound great to me. At least make it fair, as how can they make money if I can't buy anything.
Spread the wealth, sounds a lot better than trickle down economics for sure.
I did not know that - thank you NKQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Obama Calls For 'Redistribution of Wealth' In 2001 PBS Interview
YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
Apparently the voters are OK with this. :D
It proves he is even more radical than even I suspected.
The Warren Court was the most radical court in our history and yet he says it did not go far enough because it did not address an issue it has no perusal over :
"The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.”
He thinks the court did not attempt to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution .
As a Harvard trained lawyer he should know it is not the job of the court to expand the powers of government . The constitution was essentially designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.
He goes on to say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
He wants the NANNY STATE to have Constitutional legitimacy . It does not. He would enact his "changes " through fiat.
Balance, not limit nor expand.Quote:
not the job of the court to expand the powers of government . The constitution was essentially designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.
How can you support a bailout of the wall street casino, and not the backbone of America, the middle class, who has put up with this bad behavior, through no fault of their own??
You should read the writings of the Founders. They designed the Federal Government to have limited powers .
[The Federalist No. 45]Quote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
What you are referring to (I think) is separation of powers.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 PM. |