Obama, the Liar-In-Chief

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

"The first yields no benefit to the American people. "

I'll respectfully disagree, as the yield to this American is quite astounding.

"the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me."

You make a good point there. All I can say to that is this...many problems here (like poverty and homelessness) can not be solved by throwing money at tham. Many people are not poor due to a lack of money, they are poor because of laziness or menatl disease or addiction. Can't cure that with money. But you absolutely can save the life of an African baby, born with AIDS, with money.

But as usual, you make a logical point about solving our own problems first. There is some validity to that.

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

"That is the company's inalienable right to its property..."

The airline doesn't own the space above my house where it flies the plane. Therefore, I have no problem with the feds telling airlines that they have to take precautions before they take to the skies. If an airline doesn't ant to put security measures into place, that endangers all of us.

"Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake."

Agreed 100%. I just don't feel like the post 09/11 security measures have reduced my freedoms by any measurable amount.

I see a lot of things that scare me out there, most of them economic in nature, because I'm a numbers guy. But not many safety measures that are part of the war on terror, worry me. I only worry that we aren't going far enough in the name of political correctness.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"That is the company's inalienable right to its property..."

The airline doesn't own the space above my house where it flies the plane. Therefore, I have no problem with the feds telling airlines that they have to take precautions before they take to the skies.

Who "owns" the space above your house, and how high up is it owned. Are there any international and free levels? Are you saying the Federal government owns the space. And it's quite a leap from "The airline doesn't own the space" to "I have no problem with the feds telling airlines . . ." What is the connection between the airlines not owning the space to the gvt. telling them what to do? Under the premise that airlines not owning the space gives the gvt. power to tell them what precautions they must take, what is it that the government cannot demand the airlines do? Do you own that space above your house? Remember, there is a difference between space and atmosphere. Since the space is above your house, it is certain that you are in various ways entering that space with every breath you breath or car you drive or cigarette you smoke, or in so many innumerable ways. Does this give gvt. the power to make you do as it wishes? Do you believe that market competition is a more effective driving economic force than government regulation? Haven't airlines taken many "precautions" without being told by government to do so?

If an airline doesn't ant to put security measures into place, that endangers all of us.

I think JohnnyD's point about the "rabbit hole" of totalitarian like gvt. leading to every citizen being treated like a terrorist, exagerated as it is (you do understant hyperbole, right?) stems from security measures being directed at citizens rather than actual terrorists. Rather than the government constitutionally protecting us from terrorists by securing borders, cooperating with States to find and deport aliens, and demanding the exportation of those whose visas have expired, keeping tabs on all who are here for temporary purposes, and, most importantly, taking the so-called war on terror to those places where they reside, hide, and breed, in an all-out war of actual annihilation or surrender of the enemies . . . rather than that, we impose security measures at home. Half wars like Viet-Nam, Desert Storm, temporary occupations, counter insurgencies from a distance, and avoidence of collateral damage, don't seem to stop determined adversaries. Crush them totally in the first instance, rather than imposing bunker mentality regulations on our own people. The Afghanistan war should have been a quick and massive destruction with the understood and expressed threat that this is what you will get if you harbor those that kill us.


I see a lot of things that scare me out there, most of them economic in nature, because I'm a numbers guy. But not many safety measures that are part of the war on terror, worry me. I only worry that we aren't going far enough in the name of political correctness.

When you give government power over you for safety, you might be a bit safer in one way (debatable), but in danger of forfeiting your sovereignty in another. Was it Franklin that said something to the effect that those who give up liberty for security and comfort deserve neither (or will lose both?).