Do progressives understand this quote?

It seems like EVERY solution they have involves a LARGER more POWERFUL centralized government. If you mention government these days, they don't even recognize state or local governments. The ENTIRE focus for them is making the federal government more powerful in a vain effort that Washington D.C. will...... protect them from banks, corporatism what? I don't even know because the larger Washington D.C have become, the more powerful banks and corporations have become.

Do they recognize the correlation at least? The causation?

Well? Anyone?

 

Progressives running away in fear instead of facing the obvious?

 

Liberals are gonna need a minute on this one.

Andrew Jackson began the process of separation of the South from the North with the Tax of Abominations.

Lincoln guaranteed incredible centralization of power from there by fighting the South's right to secede.

 

Progressives don't care about quotes because they lack context, unless they're quotes from the Bible, in which case no context is allowed but you can still use the quote.

 

IMO, there is truth on all sides of this. The states have been sources of oppression, just as the federal government has been a source for liberation. It's hard to speak in generalizations. Just as there were founders who believed the federal government would be oppressive, requiring stronger states, there were founders who believed it was the states who would be the greatest offenders. Personally, I'm content to say that they were both right, but one virtue of state's power is that uses of federal power to promote liberty STARTED with states using their own power within their own jurisdictions.

To me, it's more the structure of the government, rather than just the scope of it as "state vs federal" that is more important. And to that extent, I am unhappy with the degree to which government in our system is prone to bribery and special interests.

Anyway, with regard to banks and what not, I'm sure lots of correlations can be drawn. If we want to chart economic growth in the country, it seems to have expanded exponentially in correlation with growth in federal power over the last 200 years... not to say that one causes the other.

On the subject of state vs federal regulations (be it banking or otherwise) there's been one particular nagging problem with giving preference to states that has bothered me (and again, this is not to say that I don't sympathize with problems of having it centralized in the federal government). It's the idea that one state can reduce or eliminate regulations on products which are exported to other states, giving that state all of the financial benefits of the transaction while externalizing the cost to other states. It seems that central regulation is required to mitigate this kind of abuse. One example that comes to mind is usury laws, which used to be in place on both state and federal levels. When the federal government removed their usury laws, North Dakota became a central hub of credit card companies due to their lack of any substantial usury laws. This was a boon to North Dakota, but it undermined the usury laws in place at other states. So to tie this back to the question of banks and corporations becoming more powerful, what would stop this from happening under states any more so than federal?

In other words, it seems to me that this federalist system separating state and federal powers creates its own issues. The federal government is charged with regulating interstate commerce, which presumably would include regulation and standardization of things such as credit cards and interstate banking, probably for the very reasons mentioned. But it is also fair to say that the federal government is prone to corruption, which I personally blame on how distant and gridlocked it is. Our federal system was designed to be complex and gridlocked as a feature, but I fear that what this has caused is the creating of a system that is too complex for anybody but special interests, corporations and banks to have substantial influence.

Long story short, damned if you do, damned if you don't by current designs. Conceptually, a federalist system with the separations of power make sense, but we (as a whole country going from 13 to 50 states) just got to big, and the federal power too distant to perform its role effectively.

 

I've never been a federalist but at least I'm not a bloody anarchist.

 

Are you against the 'war' on drugs? Are you against invading other countries? Are you against police brutality?

 

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

"The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed."

 

Shhhh... hush now. Just like the Bible, you're supposed to ignore the parts that you don't like such as the Civil War establishing federal dominance in matters related to Constitutionality and the rather clear constraints against an entrenched military

 

At least since WW 2, and most likely since the civil war, the states have acquiesced to almost all Washington demands. The governments limits have almost never been tested.

However, strictly by law they can still choose to not cooperate. When they do the government imposes penalties of one kind or another, most of the time denying federal funding for infrastructure projects and so on.

The thought has been that though everyone agrees with the principal of state sovereignty they also know that in practice it creates chaos.

 

An interesting quotation but notice that it doesn't limit itself to just the power of Washington DC over the United States but also addresses the power of Washington DC in world affairs. The Republicans lead the charge in demanding a larger and more powerful US military with the sole purpose of imposing the will of the United States in world affairs with military interventionism and/or intimidation. Both Democrats and Republicans endorse using the power of the US in dominating world affairs as they love the role of being the "Last World Super Power" with a "Might Makes Right" political ideology. The largest single general expenditure of the US government is the US military and we spend about 10-times more than any other nation in the world on our military.

Both Republicans and Democrats advocate a larger role of the US government in both domestic and foreign affairs. It isn't like this is a one-sided problem but instead the Democrats and Republicans are merely opposite sides of the same coin. Neither the D's or R's advocate limiting the US government to the enumerated powers delegated in the US Constitution as each seeks to expand the power of government for their own political agendas.

Examples of both seeking to expand the power of the US government are so easily provided that I won't waste my time on it (unless requested) but for one-side to blame the other is merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The problem isn't the "Democrats or Republicans" but instead "Democrats and Republicans" are the problem.

 

Classic example of a progressive who doesn't even acknowledge state or local government.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I'm for legalizing all drugs and prostitution. Yes, I'm a pacifist. Yes, I'm a pacifist.

Anything else?

 

I guess that would be an argument If I posted I wanted to do away with the federal government. The federal government WAS powerful enough with it's enumerated powers.

 

That's probably why I'm a Libertarian who would never vote D or R with the exception of a Ron Paul like candidate.

 

Hmm, why you worried about progress? I thought you liked bigger corporate government dripping in greedy capitalism? One world Order! Globalism! Weak Individualism of citizens. Monopolies. Militarys. Homeland Security. Faith based Charity. Come on! Do you understand it now??

 

I believe I've identified the problem with your post.

 

Yeah, a cowardly fence setter who will never make a change in the World of reality, but is content to blame others for his own folly.

 

I've never set a fence in my life.

 

I believe, and that is all you got, fantasys and delusions and BS.

 

1) This is a classic Strawman argument. You define your opponents position, incorrectly, then argue against it.
2) The fact the moderators allow Email chains and Strawmen to pose as thread topics is embarassing. The fact the do nothing about it is shameful.
3) There endless examples of Progressives using state and local government or trying to thwart the power of the federal government. The fact you don't recognize this mean either you live in a bubble, or you are woefully ignorant. (Notice I didn't say stupid , Ignorance is the absence of knowledge and this thread proves it beyond doubt)
4) Why did you limit your inane diatribe against progressives when conservatives are just as likely to push for increased government power. Signing Statements, War powers, Executive Orders, Executive Agreements, Patriot Act, Abortion laws, Gay Marriage, etc etc etc.

5) This entire thread should be deleted for lack of intelligence, logic, informed opinion, and contribution to political discourse.
6) I would love to hear a mod explain why Strawmen topics are allowed. At least Viagra spam allows people to purchase a REAL product.

 

Projection your honor!

 

Nope. As a movement you support more of a corporate whore in Obama than Bush was!

Don't like being called out huh?

There's endless examples of support federally which effectively nullify anything done on the state and local level.

Plenty of progressives within the republican movement. Hell, with the support they(progressives) give for NSA, permanent Patriot Act, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, bombing of Libya, regime change, executive powers including the assignation of American citizens without due process, executive orders..... I'd have to guess most of you progressives are hold out Bush supporters!!!!

You REALLY don't like to get called out do you? Just accept the truth. It'll feel better after the sting goes away.

Keep denying simple truth while you progressives tripped over yourselves voting in corporate whore Obama for a 2nd term.

 

Ron Paul is not a libertarian although he advocates some libertarian principles. Ron Paul has serious flaws in his political positions from a libertarian perspective. Obviously not as bad as many other Republicans but certainly not a libertarian.

 

Another logical fallacy where you fail to address anything.

2 more logical fallacies. The most obvious of which is you jumped to the conclusion that I am an Obama supporter even though I never stated or even hinted at it.

I'm simply pointing out the glaring flaws in your logic. It wouldn't matter what your or my positions were. The fact you are incapable of making an intelligent or logical point stands.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Again, you make the fallacy of assuming I don't agree with your overarching thesis.

I actually do agree with you that all those things are bad. Would could never understand that because you don't know anything about logic, inference, debate, or coherent point.

My guess is you listen to Glenn Beck all day and then just parrot what you hear. And since he doesn't understand logic... what chance did you have.

The same logical fallacy over and over.

How can you sting me? You don't even understand the words your typing.

Again you assumed I voted for Obama, that I'm progressive, or denying anything.
I'm just hear to point out that you are incapable of making a logical point.
But now its worse, your incapable of reading comprehension. (Evidenced by your retort)

 

Did progressives overwhelmingly support Obama or not? Yep, they sure did but nice try attempting to deny it!

I could tell by your statements. You're just mad I called you out and now you're basically proving I was right.

You're REALLY mad about getting called out aren't you? It was the Bush supporter similarity wasn't it but it's true. Progressives were against everything Obama has done when Bush did them.

Truth hurts.

My guess is you're just sore I pointed out you're no different than a Bush supporter.

Did you vote for Obama twice? Come on! Twice!?

Sure I do. Progressives are no different than Bush supporters except that Obama one upped Bush on a lot of civil liberties fronts.

Oh you voted for Obama and I'm guessing twice. Most progressives unconditionally support Obama.