James Madison

[muggsy]

"If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." --James Madison, Federalist No. 57, 1788

Daily quote from "The Patriots Post".

[MW surveyor]

So, where and when did it go all wrong!

[mr surveyor]

voter apathy and ignorance.

[JFootin]

Ignoramousness of the highest order! Otherwise known as "progressive" politics. I get so tired of O and the Dems talking about rich, successful people not paying their fair share. I have news for them! NO ONE should be taxed one penny on their hard work, inventiveness, entrepreneurism, creativity, accomplishment.

[OldLincoln]

Obama told the sheep to look the other way while he performed "the change".

[les strat]

Not working. Jefferson's ideas were prophetic enough to address this. They make more sense at this point. Government should fear the people. Period.

Oh BTW, here's another Madison quote:


"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

[muggsy]

Ignoramousness of the highest order! Otherwise known as "progressive" politics. I get so tired of O and the Dems talking about rich, successful people not paying their fair share. I have news for them! NO ONE should be taxed one penny on their hard work, inventiveness, entrepreneurism, creativity, accomplishment.

+1 Well said, J.

[muggsy]

Not working. Jefferson's ideas were prophetic enough to address this. They make more sense at this point. Government should fear the people. Period.

Oh BTW, here's another Madison quote:


"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

A better quote would be, "The government should respect the people."

[Tinman507]

Mr. Madison's vision of our government went south once "politician" became a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned true citizen representatives. Farmers, publishers, lawyers, pastors who would be elected to serve their communities part time. Serve their terms and return back to private life. It was never intended to be a career.

This is where term limits need to be enacted, but I doubt that will ever happen. The same career slugs would have to vote their way of existence out of business. Like the fox voluntarily giving up chicken. Ain't happenin.

[muggsy]

Mr. Madison's vision of our government went south once "politician" became a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned true citizen representatives. Farmers, publishers, lawyers, pastors who would be elected to serve their communities part time. Serve their terms and return back to private life. It was never intended to be a career.

This is where term limits need to be enacted, but I doubt that will ever happen. The same career slugs would have to vote their way of existence out of business. Like the fox voluntarily giving up chicken. Ain't happenin.

The founding fathers gave us term limits. They called it the ballot box. Of course it only works if the people turn out to vote.

[les strat]

We also have the 2nd Ammendment that is used if plan A doesn't work. Funny people think that ammendment is for hunting and personal protection.

[knkali]

We also have the 2nd Ammendment that is used if plan A doesn't work. Funny people think that ammendment is for hunting and personal protection.

Yep many think that but the old guys never had that in mind.

[knkali]

In all fairness. Can we ever really make changes in our government that are more in line with the consitutionalist way of thinking?? Is it too late? Is the world more convoluted than what the founding fathers ever imagined? How much change is enough? Will everyone ever be happy? In short, is smaller government a fantasy?

[yqtszhj]

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

I can handle that one.

[yqtszhj]

A better quote would be, "The government should respect the people."

Which as a whole they don't

[yqtszhj]

Obama told the sheep to look the other way while he performed "the change".

He's the illusionist of the 21st century. Next he will make the Statue of liberty disappear. You ask why that? Because it's the Statue of LIBERTY.

[yqtszhj]

The founding fathers gave us term limits. They called it the ballot box. Of course it only works if the people turn out to vote.

And are willing to vote their own guy out. That goes for my voter district too.

[yqtszhj]

In all fairness. Can we ever really make changes in our government that are more in line with the consitutionalist way of thinking?? Is it too late? Is the world more convoluted than what the founding fathers ever imagined? How much change is enough? Will everyone ever be happy? In short, is smaller government a fantasy?

It's like the Israelites after about 30+ years wandering around with Moses wanting to go back to egypt because "they never went hungry there." The newbies forgot about being slaves. Collectively we just don't know where we came from anymore. Don't they require history in schools now? Or is it what they teach (nothing against teachers mind you.)

[crazymailman]

The trouble is that the districts are gerrymandered to help their guys stay in.

[Bill K]

We also have the 2nd Ammendment that is used if plan A doesn't work. Funny people think that ammendment is for hunting and personal protection.

Jocko is funny. What does he think? :)

[yqtszhj]

Jocko is funny. What does he think? :)

That may be one of those things he won't say and you know what that means.. :33:

[muggsy]

About 55% of the electorate turns out for a presidential election. About half of that 55% voted Obama into office. That means that about one quarter of the electorate put Obama into the White House. That includes the deceased who voted in Chicago. If you don't like the way things are going in this country get off of your behind and vote. Everyone of us should write a letter to our respective representatives demanding voter ID be required to insure a fair and honest election. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[LMT42]

Tinman is spot on; we need term limits and publicly funded elections. It's a crock to say we can just vote them out. Only the rich can afford to run, so we just get more of what we had. Term limits and radical changes in campaign finance are needed. I think are political system (Dems and Reps) is too corrupt to save at this point.

[apheod]

About 55% of the electorate turns out for a presidential election. About half of that 55% voted Obama into office. That means that about one quarter of the electorate put Obama into the White House. That includes the deceased who voted in Chicago. If you don't like the way things are going in this country get off of your behind and vote. Everyone of us should write a letter to our respective representatives demanding voter ID be required to insure a fair and honest election. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

and it was him or mccain. mccain is the scum behind the indefinite detention provisions of ndaa 2012. i voted ron paul in '08. my vote didn't matter anymore than it will in 2012, although i'll still go cast it. i believe this is the part where you tell me that by not voting mccain, i helped obama win and am just as guilty as those who voted for him. as though things would be peachy right now under a mccain/palin presidency...

most likely, it will be obama vs romney.

thats like giving me a choice between cancer and aids. romney is big business personified. i think very little of obama, but romney is about to surpass him on the douchemeter in my book, and he hasnt even had any time in office yet. and gingrich? please. don't even get me started on that egotistical fraud. complete joke of a man. i hear his next pitch will be to try and attach himself to the tea party.

getting out and voting will solve nothing, our system has been infiltrated and grossly perverted. i still do it, mainly so that people can't tell me i have no right to complain since i didnt vote. to be completely honest, i have little faith that the elections are even fair, since everything is electronic now and a couple button pushes make the results say whatever "they" want them to say.

then there is the ridiculous concept of the electoral college...

[yqtszhj]

Tinman is spot on; we need term limits and publicly funded elections. It's a crock to say we can just vote them out. Only the rich can afford to run, so we just get more of what we had. Term limits and radical changes in campaign finance are needed. I think are political system (Dems and Reps) is too corrupt to save at this point.

Not that it usually does but the vote can work if people want it to. My district had a new 1 term conservative democrat house member that was previously a local mayor before he won his house seat in 2008. I voted against him in 2008. In 2010 he spent millions against his republican opponent that had little money. the news was saying that the incumbent democrat was ahead in polls by a landslide. On election day that incumbent took a beating and was gone. His republican opponent had 10th of the funds he did but he lost because people got out and voted. That's what has the potential to fix things, people using common sense and doing their part. I hope it happens in November otherwise....... :(

[Jeremiah/Az]

Common sense is not common anymore.

[les strat]

Jocko is funny. What does he think? :)


Funny, and I'd vote for him. :D

I can see it now: 2013 stimulus - everyone gets a new PM9 on the governement's dime. But you have to shoot it like you stold it!

[yqtszhj]

Funny, and I'd vote for him. :D

I can see it now: 2013 stimulus - everyone gets a new PM9 on the governement's dime. But you have to shoot it like you stold it!


I've been promoting that since 2010 I think, and he hasn't accepted the nomination yet. If I recall his words they were "the fewer peop[le that know abouto ld jocko th ebetter" and that's without typo's corrected. :D We think highly of him even though he's such a new member.:D:D

[muggsy]

Not that it usually does but the vote can work if people want it to. My district had a new 1 term conservative democrat house member that was previously a local mayor before he won his house seat in 2008. I voted against him in 2008. In 2010 he spent millions against his republican opponent that had little money. the news was saying that the incumbent democrat was ahead in polls by a landslide. On election day that incumbent took a beating and was gone. His republican opponent had 10th of the funds he did but he lost because people got out and voted. That's what has the potential to fix things, people using common sense and doing their part. I hope it happens in November otherwise....... :(

I like a man who doesn't whine about his situation, but rather takes action to correct it. Your ok,yqtszhj. BTW, do you pronounce your screen name exactly like it sounds? :)

[les strat]

I'd wager most of us on the forum voted in the last presidential election. I do not go by what the polls say and the media belches, but it has a huge influence on the general ignorant public. They want to vote for the "winner", and some vote for a pres. that is younger and good looking over the cadidate's political stance. Sad but true. America has propagated a nation of fools.

Muggsy I would be more leery of the one's who don't care then the ones like me that raise eyebrows and quesiton the goings-on or lack of in DC. People who do that usually care a lot about their country, are the true meaning of patriotic, and want the best for our country the way it was set in motion from the get-go. We are nowhere near it and straying each day. And NONE of the nominates (minus Ron Paul) are respresentative of that. So it is basically like voting between the lesser evils. I will vote, however, for which ever one is up against B.O. Ron Paul would have been the man our nation's founders would have wanted, but his foreign policy won't work today as we have to clean up and police our mess of WMD's we allowed to get spread throughout the world. It is our technology and our mess.

[knkali]

Les, I respect your views but propose softening on our culpability regarding WMD and the need us to police the world. After all, others were working on the super bomb at the same time we were. We got there first is all. Eventually, we would be in the same situation we are now. The fact that maniacs will eventually have this technology is a very real one. If I understand Ron Paul's platform correctly, it is simply based on the Golden Rule. The more you tell Billy not to go to the cookie jar, guess where Billy will really want to go? Besides, the current foreign policy paradigm isnt working very well as far as I am concerned. Maybe a dose of the Golden Rule is what the doctor ordered?

[les strat]

Les, I respect your views but propose softening on our culpability regarding WMD and the need us to police the world. After all, others were working on the super bomb at the same time we were. We got there first is all. Eventually, we would be in the same situation we are now. The fact that maniacs will eventually have this technology is a very real one. If I understand Ron Paul's platform correctly, it is simply based on the Golden Rule. The more you tell Billy not to go to the cookie jar, guess where Billy will really want to go? Besides, the current foreign policy paradigm isnt working very well as far as I am concerned. Maybe a dose of the Golden Rule is what the doctor ordered?

I agree and don't feel like we need to be the world police, but we can't turn away and do nothing. They would nuke us in a minute given the chance. They really hate us primarily because of our presence there, in their "holy land" and being allies with Israel. We are infidels to them. They hate the western culture and would do anything to erradicate it from the planet.

[knkali]

I agree and don't feel like we need to be the world police, but we can't turn away and do nothing. They would nuke us in a minute given the chance. They really hate us primarily because of our presence there, in their "holy land" and being allies with Israel. We are infidels to them. They hate the western culture and would do anything to erradicate it from the planet.

I cannot deny that there is no love toward us but I do have to ask why there have not been more attacks on us with the means they have available now? That would seem congruent with the above quote. I really am asking and not trying to stir the pot.

[JFootin]

"If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." --James Madison, Federalist No. 57, 1788

Daily quote from "The Patriots Post".


So, where and when did it go all wrong!

A good article and an inoculation against the Obama 'fairness' mantra:
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/02/02/defeating-obamas-socialist-propaganda/

[apheod]

And by us invading/occupying/setting up another US friendly Iranian regime, we'll only create that many more enemies who want to nuke us. Remember the shah of Iran? That didn't go over so well.

That is assuming of course, we can pull this off without starting world war 3, which is a realistic possibility.

North Korea is run by lunatics with nukes, has been for years. They can't stand us. Why haven't they nuked us? Because our nuclear deterrent still deters. Iran will not have a cold war soviet type nuclear force for decades, if ever. By then, if we haven't financially crippled ourselves so badly from waging endless war against the rest of the world, we should be able to afford to develop the technology to make a star wars type icbm defense system a reality.

In the mean time? Iran is not going to toss the first nuke they build our way. They know all too well what our response would be, and they don't want their entire country to be a smoldering nuclear wasteland. At the moment, they don't even have the means to deliver one to our country on a rocket. If all of the freedoms we've given up in the name of keeping us all safe from terrorists and the trillions we've pissed away in this bogus war aren't enough to keep them from smuggling a gigantic low tech, early nuke across our border, then well...

[knkali]

And by us invading/occupying/setting up another US friendly Iranian regime, we'll only create that many more enemies who want to nuke us. Remember the shah of Iran? That didn't go over so well.

That is assuming of course, we can pull this off without starting world war 3, which is a realistic possibility.

North Korea is run by lunatics with nukes, has been for years. They can't stand us. Why haven't they nuked us? Because our nuclear deterrent still deters. Iran will not have a cold war soviet type nuclear force for decades, if ever. By then, if we haven't financially crippled ourselves so badly from waging endless war against the rest of the world, we should be able to afford to develop the technology to make a star wars type icbm defense system a reality.

In the mean time? Iran is not going to toss the first nuke they build our way. They know all too well what our response would be, and they don't want their entire country to be a smoldering nuclear wasteland. At the moment, they don't even have the means to deliver one to our country on a rocket. If all of the freedoms we've given up in the name of keeping us all safe from terrorists and the trillions we've pissed away in this bogus war aren't enough to keep them from smuggling a gigantic low tech, early nuke across our border, then well...

well said IMHO

[tv_racin_fan]

I'd sure like to know a workable plan to keep nukes out of their hands.

Trade embargoes only work when EVERYONE is on the plan. IF you are the only one on the plan it aint no biggie to them.

Notice how as soon as we FINALLY put enough pressure on Europe to get them on the plan OTHER nations say they can not afford to get on the plan. Iran will therefore just ship their oil to those other nations and wont even miss a beat.

Doing what we have been doing apparently aint working so what exactly is the NEXT idea to try?

[getsome]

Just a couple of thoughts, One about term limits....I would like to see term limits on the Sepreme Court Justices put in place...When a sitting President is able to stock a seat with his guy for life that is like having the fox guard the hen house because the SC is where the real power lies...I say 10 years max and out...

Now about nukes...This is scary as he!! but is the truth...Pakistan moves their nukes around from place to place in unmarked vans because of the total lack of any sort of security in that wasteland of a country where Osama Bin Laden was living in the biggest house in town and NOBODY noticed!!!....All it would take is one in a suitcase and a major city in this country would be gone...The radical terrorists doesn't need ICBM's to get it done and I'm sorry to say IMHO it's not if it will happen but when...

As for Iran, they will do anything in their power to take out Israel and will do so at the first opportunity...As for economic sanctions hurting them and their ability to sell oil it doesn't matter as long as our back stabbing friends in oil hungry China buy every drop Iran is able to produce....China has sold the USA the rope we will use to hang ourselves with

I feel the time to stop Iran was yesterday and if Obama doesn't have the stones to do it, Israel will so get ready folks cause chits coming for breakfast and we are going to have to eat it and like it no matter how much it stinks and how bad it tastes...

[muggsy]

A good article and an inoculation against the Obama 'fairness' mantra:
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/02/02/defeating-obamas-socialist-propaganda/

JFootin, your choice in reading material is impeccable. Do you receive Imprimus? Another great read.

[muggsy]

And by us invading/occupying/setting up another US friendly Iranian regime, we'll only create that many more enemies who want to nuke us. Remember the shah of Iran? That didn't go over so well.

That is assuming of course, we can pull this off without starting world war 3, which is a realistic possibility.

North Korea is run by lunatics with nukes, has been for years. They can't stand us. Why haven't they nuked us? Because our nuclear deterrent still deters. Iran will not have a cold war soviet type nuclear force for decades, if ever. By then, if we haven't financially crippled ourselves so badly from waging endless war against the rest of the world, we should be able to afford to develop the technology to make a star wars type icbm defense system a reality.

In the mean time? Iran is not going to toss the first nuke they build our way. They know all too well what our response would be, and they don't want their entire country to be a smoldering nuclear wasteland. At the moment, they don't even have the means to deliver one to our country on a rocket. If all of the freedoms we've given up in the name of keeping us all safe from terrorists and the trillions we've pissed away in this bogus war aren't enough to keep them from smuggling a gigantic low tech, early nuke across our border, then well...

The Iranians don't need a rocket, Apheod. They can sail a nuke up the Hudson or Potomac. One could pass right under the Golden Gate Bridge. The N. Koreans aren't into martyrdom. The Jehadists live to die.

[LMT42]

The Iranians don't need a rocket, Apheod. They can sail a nuke up the Hudson or Potomac. One could pass right under the Golden Gate Bridge. The N. Koreans aren't into martyrdom. The Jehadists live to die.

Iranians (Persians, not Arabs) haven't attacked or invaded another country in over a hundred years. Now they're boxed in after WE invaded neighboring countries and you blame them for wanting a nuke?

Have you learned nothing from Iraq (based on false intel and propaganda) and Afghanistan (will revert to Taliban rule after we leave)? Ahmadinejad makes one inflammatory statement (harmless rhetoric) and you guys want another war?!? Unbelievable.

Y'all might want to read up on what happened in the 2002 war games before hoping for an invasion of Iran.

http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

[apheod]

sure they COULD. lots of things COULD happen. i know a schizophrenic who owns a firearm. he COULD go batshit and shoot me someday. should i go shoot him in the head just in case? no.

we can't kill everyone who MIGHT do something that would kill americans. lots of people want to kill americans, but don't. iran is HIGHLY unlikely to nuke us IMO.

how many countries have we attacked in the last 100 years? you can't count them on both hands and both feet.

got to spread that freedom and democracy, so everyone can be as "free" as we are here. i feel more free every year, especially around the time they pass that year's NDAA.

[JFootin]

JFootin, your choice in reading material is impeccable. Do you receive Imprimus? Another great read.

No. Do you have a link?

[muggsy]

About Imprimis

Imprimis is the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College and is dedicated to educating citizens and promoting civil and religious liberty by covering cultural, economic, political and educational issues of enduring significance. The content of Imprimis is drawn from speeches delivered to Hillsdale College-hosted events, both on-campus and off-campus. First published in 1972, Imprimis is one of the most widely circulated opinion publications in the nation with over two million subscribers.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

[JFootin]

Thanks! I couldn't find it doing a Google Search.

[muggsy]

Iranians (Persians, not Arabs) haven't attacked or invaded another country in over a hundred years. Now they're boxed in after WE invaded neighboring countries and you blame them for wanting a nuke?

Have you learned nothing from Iraq (based on false intel and propaganda) and Afghanistan (will revert to Taliban rule after we leave)? Ahmadinejad makes one inflammatory statement (harmless rhetoric) and you guys want another war?!? Unbelievable.

Y'all might want to read up on what happened in the 2002 war games before hoping for an invasion of Iran.

http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

What I've learned from experience is that when a man makes a threat you keep your guard up.

[mr surveyor]

I've learned to stick with the "Trust, But Verify" policy when dealing with all but family and close friends.... and even with some of them I want three trustworthy references;)

[muggsy]

sure they COULD. lots of things COULD happen. i know a schizophrenic who owns a firearm. he COULD go batshit and shoot me someday. should i go shoot him in the head just in case? no.

we can't kill everyone who MIGHT do something that would kill americans. lots of people want to kill americans, but don't. iran is HIGHLY unlikely to nuke us IMO.

how many countries have we attacked in the last 100 years? you can't count them on both hands and both feet.

got to spread that freedom and democracy, so everyone can be as "free" as we are here. i feel more free every year, especially around the time they pass that year's NDAA.

Can't you ever have a discussion without going to extremes or making a personal attack? We know for a fact that Iran has been aiding the Jehadists that are killing our troops in Afghanistan. Iranian missiles have been raining down on Israel for years. When the Iranian president says that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map and kill all infidels, as an infidel, I take him seriously. I guess that I just don't have a sense of humor. This post started harmlessly with a quote from one of our founding fathers. Where are you taking it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html?_r=1

[apheod]

i've made FAR less personal attacks against you than you have against me. i've been able to find about 5 going through my posts, and almost 15 going through yours. i made no personal attack in this thread.

i "go to extremes" (almost as extreme as you saying iran will nuke us as soon as they can) because i have a rather dry, sarcastic, pessimistic sense of humor that doesn't translate very well to text.

the thread turned towards our foreign policy and WMD at post #30, and several more posts were made on the subject before i inserted my views on the subject. i didn't "take your thread in that direction."

israel is not a US state. they have their own nukes and can handle themselves. look how they handled iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. i'd expect a similar attack on iran in the next few months. unfortunately, i think we'll immediately, and unnecessarily step in on their side, possibly kicking off a world war.

jihad is spelled with an I.

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/397245_377364865612865_201900393159314_1753438_167 7161911_n.jpg

[apheod]

i guess skimming over your post, i missed the part about iran shooting missiles at israel for years, this thread was still up on my browser when i reopened it and i noticed it... this is news to me. have you any proof of this?

as far as iran threatening israel... israel has been threatening iran for years.

i'm unable to confirm it with google-fu, and i can't really see israel allowing iran to fire missiles at them without a serious response.

[JFootin]

I think the answer here is two restraining orders saying that apheod cannot respond to any of muggsy's posts and that, likewise, muggsy cannot reply to any of apheod's posts. Just keep a repectable distance from each other. Anyone want to second this motion?

[apheod]

i've been civil lately, and refrained from making any personal attacks.

as far as not responding to each other period... i think it adds a little salt and pepper to the forum, having two extreme opinions which so frequently clash, so long as things are kept civil and sources are backed up.

i have no issue with anyone challenging my viewpoints on any subject. i have the beliefs i do because i spend so much time studying politics, news, and history. i'm not saying i'm always right, and i remain open to changing my views should sufficient evidence be provided to make me do so.

i don't seek arguments, but i do enjoy discussion, especially with folks who see things in a totally different light than i do. i'm interested in learning WHY they see things that way, and seeing if there's anything i might be able to pick up.

at the end of the day, we're all gun folks, and more similar than it appears watching us bicker.

[Tinman507]

I think the answer here is two restraining orders saying that apheod cannot respond to any of muggsy's posts and that, likewise, muggsy cannot reply to any of apheod's posts. Just keep a repectable distance from each other. Anyone want to second this motion?

I am 1000% on board with that. I don't have 1500 posts or anything but this is getting a little old guys. Don't make me come in there and separate you.

[muggsy]

i guess skimming over your post, i missed the part about iran shooting missiles at israel for years, this thread was still up on my browser when i reopened it and i noticed it... this is news to me. have you any proof of this?

as far as iran threatening israel... israel has been threatening iran for years.

i'm unable to confirm it with google-fu, and i can't really see israel allowing iran to fire missiles at them without a serious response.

It's been going on since 2008. Iran supplies missiles to Hamas who uses the missiles against Israel.

http://www.irantracker.org/military-activities/iran-hamas-relationship-2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/01/hamas-leader-linked-to-iranian-weapons/

[yqtszhj]

It's been going on since 2008. Iran supplies missiles to Hamas who uses the missiles against Israel.

http://www.irantracker.org/military-activities/iran-hamas-relationship-2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/01/hamas-leader-linked-to-iranian-weapons/

Yep. Iran doesn't jump out their own too much they let others do their dirty work. Unless of course they pick up normal people, give them a fake trial, and find them guilty as spies, just because of their nationality.