• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Art Bell

Started by sillydog, April 07, 2008, 11:21:45 PM

Jackstar

Quote from: K_Dubb on June 15, 2016, 10:43:58 PM
Now, you can't mention it at all without somebody like you trying to be subtle and nuanced.  I don't think it's any great conspiracy:  as most of us go to college, where we learn about the subtleties, we're more likely to remember that than the basics we learned in elementary school.  But if we don't watch it, we'll subtle our way out of the important stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ItabOBGWU


Value Of Pi

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 15, 2016, 10:12:50 PM
That's a faulty interpretation of the Constitution.  Our rights are only limited if we infringe on the rights of others.

That's not the Constitution you're talking about. It's just libertarian thinking. I would not try making that case in court. As in, "I know I was technically breaking the law, your Honor, but I wasn't infringing on anyone's rights. So please dismiss the case."

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 15, 2016, 10:17:57 PM
Yeah. I agree with most of your points. And add even if we have those rights there are also some things called politeness, decorum, and common-sense. Simply because you have the right doesn't mean you must exercise it all the time or in some fashion that offends or scares someone. Though likewise giving up rights, assuming through voting or active contract you can do so, shouldn't be done. I also think there was far more actually intended and implied than taught or commonly held in terms of separation and balance of powers. It was not just between Federal branches but also between States and Feds, Counties vs States, and people versus all. Additionally, I would add, that the Founders never assumed these rights for everyone here (controversial but I will stand by it considering the "refugees" and illegals invading and them taking advantage of our hospitality to commit mayhem, terrorism, and crime- even if it is a small percentage of them.) But, assuming we get all of these secretive "trade" agreements and hand-over everything to international bodies and unelected international tribunals the point is likely moot soon.
ps:  ;) on the Obama association stuff. I just like to do that sometimes.

Beyond decorum and common sense, think of the chaos if, say, the right to free speech was actually unlimited. BLM, for example, decides to stage a march down Fifth Ave, 10,000 people strong, with no warning given to authorities and no permit issued. They claim it's their uninfringeable right to protest wherever, whenever on public property. Not good.

I cite BLM instead of the VFW or the Shriners because that example will get more heads nodding on this site. Too much of anything isn't a good thing. Give the Founders credit for understanding that. What a bunch of smart fellas.

albrecht

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 11:17:28 PM
Beyond decorum and common sense, think of the chaos if, say, the right to free speech was actually unlimited. BLM, for example, decides to stage a march down Fifth Ave, 10,000 people strong, with no warning given to authorities and no permit issued. They claim it's their uninfringeable right to protest wherever, whenever on public property. Not good.

I cite BLM instead of the VFW or the Shriners because that example will get more heads nodding on this site. Too much of anything isn't a good thing. Give the Founders credit for understanding that. What a bunch of smart fellas.
Well, of course, we have seen Obama's BLMs and illegals shutting down or delaying highways or airports (like MSP) but no federal response to those areas some of which are under DHS control? Or local roads, neighborhoods, malls, and businesses, with how many arrests or convictions? Because mob rule is desired, apparently. If the Shiner's went en masse on a random day and decided to bum rush stores, and drive their mini-bikers to block highways I'm guessing there would be a response. But for others. Nothing, some local officials in B'more even say let them get on with it.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 15, 2016, 11:32:49 PM
Well, of course, we have seen Obama's BLMs and illegals shutting down or delaying highways or airports (like MSP) but no federal response to those areas some of which are under DHS control? Or local roads, neighborhoods, malls, and businesses, with how many arrests or convictions? Because mob rule is desired, apparently. If the Shiner's went en masse on a random day and decided to bum rush stores, and drive their mini-bikers to block highways I'm guessing there would be a response. But for others. Nothing, some local officials in B'more even say let them get on with it.

Yes, plenty of examples of people unlawfully exercising otherwise lawful rights. I'm not a fan at all.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: K_Dubb on June 15, 2016, 10:43:58 PM
While you're doubtless correct, a mention of something like Freedom of Speech fifty years ago would have been met with broad assent.  You might get some pinhead in the back row mumble something about fire in a theater, but most people understood the simplified statements of rights to be the important thing.

Now, you can't mention it at all without somebody like you trying to be subtle and nuanced.  I don't think it's any great conspiracy:  as most of us go to college, where we learn about the subtleties, we're more likely to remember that than the basics we learned in elementary school.  But if we don't watch it, we'll subtle our way out of the important stuff.

Yeah, I think the main difference between now and 50 years ago is that then, there wouldn't be much discussion about something like the First Amendment unless some unusual event was happening, like someone burned the American flag or neo-Nazis wanted to march through Skokie. Otherwise, we all understood the basics about the Constitution and there wasn't generally a lot of discussion.

Now it's different. If I need to make two or three posts to explain something like the concept of limited rights, which was well understood and taken for granted in the past, either we're now disagreeing about all kinds of basic stuff because people like to argue more or because we're not on the same page the way Americans used to be. I think it's mainly the latter.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 04:35:45 PM
The bolded sections are good examples of why I find your viewpoint on the Constitution and our system of government, no matter how high-minded and inspired by patriotism, way too radical for me. I pointed out initially that the courts have "no divisions" and, by implication, are vulnerable to attacks on their authority. I then pointed out that elections and appointments are the traditional means by which the voters and other branches of government can address any errors they believe the courts have made.

But, for those like you, things are so far out of control in terms of abuses by the courts that more drastic measures are called for. I just don't agree. If you want the "will of the people" to be better reflected by the courts, I suggest making it happen the old-fashioned way. By voting.

Also keep in mind that the founders were equally respectful and leery of the "will of the people." On a good day, "the people" may be a bunch of wise old sages. On a bad day, they are an unruly mob who would happily torch the Constitution on the way to eliminating their enemies of the moment. It might be prudent to fear the mob as much as you seem to fear the courts, or the government in general.

Yes, very radical.  The Founders and Framers were radicals and the founding documents were extremely radical.  In one document an angry group of leaders telling the king to piss off, exactly why, and ordering the most powerful military in the world out of the colonies.  A second document setting up liberty and self rule.  Unheard of at the time.

These people did their utmost to create a new nation of liberty and self rule, one that would be self sustaining through a system of checks and balances, separation of power.  They also knew it was the nature of things for this to be eroded over time.  It's why they wrote the types of safeguards we've discussed into the document.   

It is hardly 'a mob' when the people send representatives to DC, or demand those already there, to use the powers they do have to make changes when things are way off-track.  Reeling back certain powers of the federal and Supreme courts would need to be passed by both houses and signed by a president.  Hardly mob rule. 

This is our government.  It is there for our benefit, not for whoever can get themselves into power.  We've reached the point where it is entrenched and no longer accountable.  The elections and appointment process, business as usual, is not working.  Look at who the two current candidates are, they aren't going to address this, business as usual. 


It is probably not reasonable to expect or even hope those in DC will ever begin reducing the power of the federal government, they benefit from its growth and overreach.  There is another process in place.  Someone mentioned Article V.  Turns out there is a second way to amend the Constitution, one that bypasses DC completely.  An Article V convention of the states (NOT a Constitutional convention) - 2/3 to meet and agree on proposed amendments, then 3/4 of state legislatures need to ratify them.  Radical, difficult, but its there when we need it, when the federal government has reached a certain point, and needs to have certain limits placed on its powers, including issues the Supreme Court is to rule on.  Are we not at that point?


As far as limits to the Supreme Court, read the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The 9th states there are more rights retained by the people than those listed in the first 8 Amendments.  the 10th says those are ''reserved to the states respectively, or to the people'', i.e., to be discussed, legislation passed, and ruled on by courts at the state level.  The Congress has no legal Constitutional standing to issue laws, and the Supreme Court has no legal Constitutional standing to be ruling on issues in areas not delegated to the federal government. 

Because these powers have been usurped, the government has gotten too big, unresponsive, and unaccountable.  They have put us into such debt that our future is in jeopardy.  Lobbyists writing legislation, favors handed out to the corporatists in exchange for campaign contributions and plush jobs for congressmen after leaving office, self dealing, handouts to voting blocs.  Way off track, way out of control.  There are means at our disposal written into the document to address it.

ItsOver

P*B, you do an excellent job of explaining what the founders intended and the creature D.C. has unfortunately evolved into over several centuries. 

Quote from: ItsOver on June 16, 2016, 07:52:46 AM
P*B, you do an excellent job of explaining what the founders intended and the creature D.C. has unfortunately evolved into over several centuries.

1913 was a very bad year for our nation.

The 17th Amendment stripped the state governments of their representatives in DC.  Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures, and would block bills passed by the House that grew the federal government at the expense of state authority.  Checks and balances, separation of powers.

The Big Government folks in both parties needed that check to go away, and in 1913 the 17th was ratified.  Senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures, and no longer represented the interests of the state governments.  They were now elected directly, same as House members.

These people had big plans, but first they needed funding.  The 16th Amendment was passed, authorizing an income tax (1913).

A central bank was needed, and the Federal Reserve was created (1913). 


These do-gooder busybodies had plans - a bloated bureaucracy to build, wars to get us involved in, social issues to manage - to the point of passing an Amendment to prohibit alcohol, a Great Depression to engineer...

ItsOver

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
1913 was a very bad year for our nation.

The 17th Amendment stripped the state governments of their representatives in DC.  Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures, and would block bills passed by the House that grew the federal government at the expense of state authority.  Checks and balances, separation of powers.

The Big Government folks in both parties needed that check to go away, and in 1913 the 17th was ratified.  Senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures, and no longer represented the interests of the state governments.  They were now elected directly, same as House members.

These people had big plans, but first they needed funding.  The 16th Amendment was passed, authorizing an income tax (1913).

A central bank was needed, and the Federal Reserve was created (1913). 


These do-gooder busybodies had plans - a bloated bureaucracy to build, wars to get us involved in, social issues to manage - to the point of passing an Amendment to prohibit alcohol, a Great Depression to engineer...
It's been a slow but continuous corruption of what was originally intended.  The D.C. mafia and bloated, inefficient bureaucracy have become a self-serving monster with it's primary interest being it's own survival and continued growth.  The road to hell is paved with both good AND evil intentions.


bobo17

folks
the MEETING is Cancelled

i refuse to explain why

bobo

Quote from: bobo17 on June 16, 2016, 10:47:35 AM
folks
the MEETING is Cancelled

i refuse to explain why

bobo


Jackstar

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 15, 2016, 10:46:13 PM
Do you believe there was a Holocaust,  Jack...?


I don't think you understand how questions work. I really don't.

Dateline

Quote from: bobo17 on June 16, 2016, 10:47:35 AM
folks
the MEETING is Cancelled

i refuse to explain why

bobo

Bobo,

You must share details why the MEETING WAS CANCELLED. 

If you do, I'll give you free tickets to a Lipizzan Horse show event in Las Vegas.  These are beautiful animals.


ItsOver

Maybe this will help.  From Noory's hottyhorsedating.com


Value Of Pi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2016, 07:33:53 AM
Yes, very radical.  The Founders and Framers were radicals and the founding documents were extremely radical.  In one document an angry group of leaders telling the king to piss off, exactly why, and ordering the most powerful military in the world out of the colonies.  A second document setting up liberty and self rule.  Unheard of at the time.

These people did their utmost to create a new nation of liberty and self rule, one that would be self sustaining through a system of checks and balances, separation of power.  They also knew it was the nature of things for this to be eroded over time.  It's why they wrote the types of safeguards we've discussed into the document.   

It is hardly 'a mob' when the people send representatives to DC, or demand those already there, to use the powers they do have to make changes when things are way off-track.  Reeling back certain powers of the federal and Supreme courts would need to be passed by both houses and signed by a president.  Hardly mob rule. 

This is our government.  It is there for our benefit, not for whoever can get themselves into power.  We've reached the point where it is entrenched and no longer accountable.  The elections and appointment process, business as usual, is not working.  Look at who the two current candidates are, they aren't going to address this, business as usual. 


It is probably not reasonable to expect or even hope those in DC will ever begin reducing the power of the federal government, they benefit from its growth and overreach.  There is another process in place.  Someone mentioned Article V.  Turns out there is a second way to amend the Constitution, one that bypasses DC completely.  An Article V convention of the states (NOT a Constitutional convention) - 2/3 to meet and agree on proposed amendments, then 3/4 of state legislatures need to ratify them.  Radical, difficult, but its there when we need it, when the federal government has reached a certain point, and needs to have certain limits placed on its powers, including issues the Supreme Court is to rule on.  Are we not at that point?


As far as limits to the Supreme Court, read the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The 9th states there are more rights retained by the people than those listed in the first 8 Amendments.  the 10th says those are ''reserved to the states respectively, or to the people'', i.e., to be discussed, legislation passed, and ruled on by courts at the state level.  The Congress has no legal Constitutional standing to issue laws, and the Supreme Court has no legal Constitutional standing to be ruling on issues in areas not delegated to the federal government. 

Because these powers have been usurped, the government has gotten too big, unresponsive, and unaccountable.  They have put us into such debt that our future is in jeopardy.  Lobbyists writing legislation, favors handed out to the corporatists in exchange for campaign contributions and plush jobs for congressmen after leaving office, self dealing, handouts to voting blocs.  Way off track, way out of control.  There are means at our disposal written into the document to address it.

Yes, a few of the problems you mention are problems while others are just yearning for days past when "America was America." You were probably born in the wrong century and unless someone invents a time machine, there's no way to go back. Repealing Amendments won't make it 1913 again.

Besides which, most people don't want to live in 1913, politically, economically, socially or otherwise. We're in the 21st century, so let's just make the best of it.

jazmunda

Art Bell will be joining us on The Bell Philes tonight at 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
1913 was a very bad year for our nation.

The 17th Amendment stripped the state governments of their representatives in DC.  Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures, and would block bills passed by the House that grew the federal government at the expense of state authority.  Checks and balances, separation of powers.

The Big Government folks in both parties needed that check to go away, and in 1913 the 17th was ratified.  Senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures, and no longer represented the interests of the state governments.  They were now elected directly, same as House members.

These people had big plans, but first they needed funding.  The 16th Amendment was passed, authorizing an income tax (1913).

A central bank was needed, and the Federal Reserve was created (1913). 


These do-gooder busybodies had plans - a bloated bureaucracy to build, wars to get us involved in, social issues to manage - to the point of passing an Amendment to prohibit alcohol, a Great Depression to engineer...

I always wonder how they got those amendments ratified.   Were the citizens even paying attention?

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 16, 2016, 01:17:54 PM
Yes, a few of the problems you mention are problems while others are just yearning for days past when "America was America." You were probably born in the wrong century and unless someone invents a time machine, there's no way to go back. Repealing Amendments won't make it 1913 again.

Besides which, most people don't want to live in 1913, politically, economically, socially or otherwise. We're in the 21st century, so let's just make the best of it.

Apathetic much?

Seriously, do you have any backbone or do you continue to muddle along and hope for the best?

Value Of Pi

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 16, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Apathetic much?

Seriously, do you have any backbone or do you continue to muddle along and hope for the best?

Not apathetic at all. I'm just realistic enough not to fall in love with overly romanticized visions of the past or to embrace unworkable visions of the future. I prefer candidates with their heads screwed on right and whose main agenda is solving problems and governing well -- not promoting themselves or an ideology.

That probably sounds boring next to all the revolutionary rhetoric people enjoy spouting these days but I wouldn't confuse it with apathy. For one thing, apathetic people don't pay much attention to politics and hardly ever vote. I'm paying a lot of attention, this election in particular, because I see what's at stake.


jazmunda

We will be LIVE with Art Bell in 1 hour.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 16, 2016, 03:40:25 PM
I always wonder how they got those amendments ratified.   Were the citizens even paying attention?

They were sold as ''taxing the rich'' and making things ''more 'democratic' ''.  Sound familiar?


Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 16, 2016, 04:36:00 PM
Not apathetic at all. I'm just realistic enough not to fall in love with overly romanticized visions of the past or to embrace unworkable visions of the future. I prefer candidates with their heads screwed on right and whose main agenda is solving problems and governing well -- not promoting themselves or an ideology.

That probably sounds boring next to all the revolutionary rhetoric people enjoy spouting these days but I wouldn't confuse it with apathy. For one thing, apathetic people don't pay much attention to politics and hardly ever vote. I'm paying a lot of attention, this election in particular, because I see what's at stake.

How's that working out for you?

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 16, 2016, 04:36:00 PM
Not apathetic at all. I'm just realistic enough not to fall in love with overly romanticized visions of the past or to embrace unworkable visions of the future. I prefer candidates with their heads screwed on right and whose main agenda is solving problems and governing well -- not promoting themselves or an ideology.

That probably sounds boring next to all the revolutionary rhetoric people enjoy spouting these days but I wouldn't confuse it with apathy. For one thing, apathetic people don't pay much attention to politics and hardly ever vote. I'm paying a lot of attention, this election in particular, because I see what's at stake.


Some things are worth fighting for.  We need to go back to the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the Founders.  Instead, we are tearing them down, unconstitutionally, I might add.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 16, 2016, 01:17:54 PM
Yes, a few of the problems you mention are problems while others are just yearning for days past when "America was America." You were probably born in the wrong century and unless someone invents a time machine, there's no way to go back. Repealing Amendments won't make it 1913 again.

Besides which, most people don't want to live in 1913, politically, economically, socially or otherwise. We're in the 21st century, so let's just make the best of it.

Thank for missing the point completely.  Your professors taught you well, and you've learned much from the media

You think it's fine living in a country where a handful of political appointees make the rules on whatever they like, and that's somehow modern to you?  It's actually a soft tyranny, and very old fashioned. 

By the way, just so you know, this isn't about what century we're living in, it's about how best to govern.  What we've come to is the crony-capitalist fascists getting whatever they want, while the 'Progressive' fascists push through the courts what they could never get through legislation.  Never mind the hard work of trying to convince a majority, state by state - how tedious that would be for them when they can impose it on the whole county at once with a Supreme Court decision. 

And you're looking for someone to manage the process well. 

Oh well, maybe someone got something out of this.  At least you've gone from denying the power to reign these people in exists (if only we care to use it), to calling it too 'radical', to deciding the road to dictatorship is just somehow more modern and it's too much effort to try to slow it down.  That's actually a fair amount of progress on your part over a short amount of time.


And that about ends the Libertarians for Obama fest. Thanks for hosting, Art. 

Value Of Pi

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 16, 2016, 06:15:33 PM

Some things are worth fighting for.  We need to go back to the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the Founders.  Instead, we are tearing them down, unconstitutionally, I might add.

I respect your point of view but as I indicated, I'm not an ideologue. I look at the policy first and decide whether it would be good or bad for the country. If it happens to involve a constitutional issue that a court rules on, I make a judgment on the strength of the opposing arguments.

I might wind up in the conservative camp or the progressive camp or some other camp on a particular issue, which is fine. I'm not a card-carrying member of any party.


albrecht

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
1913 was a very bad year for our nation.

The 17th Amendment stripped the state governments of their representatives in DC.  Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures, and would block bills passed by the House that grew the federal government at the expense of state authority.  Checks and balances, separation of powers.

The Big Government folks in both parties needed that check to go away, and in 1913 the 17th was ratified.  Senators were no longer appointed by the state legislatures, and no longer represented the interests of the state governments.  They were now elected directly, same as House members.

These people had big plans, but first they needed funding.  The 16th Amendment was passed, authorizing an income tax (1913).

A central bank was needed, and the Federal Reserve was created (1913). 


These do-gooder busybodies had plans - a bloated bureaucracy to build, wars to get us involved in, social issues to manage - to the point of passing an Amendment to prohibit alcohol, a Great Depression to engineer...
Yep.

jazmunda

We will be LIVE with Art in 10 minutes.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

Value Of Pi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 16, 2016, 06:10:20 PM
How's that working out for you?

How is what working out for me? I said a few different thngs.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod