|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
My guess is that if Alabama let things rot, that would be Alabamas fault and people could just MOVE, right? the way it should be.
competition keeps prices DOWN.
and if we'd let it be, we'd have one more huge national forest instead of the bottoms that they are now.
yeah, im dumber than a box of rocks. 
They are a bunch of special interest groups with an agenda, NOT a bunch of experts who know any better than I do.
That's quite a leap in assumptions and conjectures. How did you manage that?
try reducing spending instead of raising taxes. Aren't we told, as individuals and families, that we shouldn't live beyond our own means and that if we overextend ourselves, we should stop spending so much? Why can't that work for the government as well? oh yeah, I forgot. You MUST have your liberal socialist freeloading programs to help everyone that isn't rich. |
...the stats I've <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2324989&postcount=237">posted</a> in the Hillary Healthcare thread, comparing Denmark and France to the UK, USA, and Mexico, are an indictment of your politics, because they show what happens when the wealthiest make the rules.... 17 percent poverty in the UK, vs. 6 percent in France....40 percent in Mexico, close to 15 percent in the US. In Denmark...there are no protesting factions that the CIA Factbook could display....you offer a prescription for future civil unrest... GINI above 45 in the US and Mexico, vs. mid twenties in Denmark and in France.... your orthodoxy screws the common man, and opens the door for the richest to take it all....
A government by the people and sympathetic to the concerns of the overwhelming majority...(and eliminating progressive income tax and inheritance taxes, and campaigning for deregulation of the monopolistic and opportunistic and politically controlling activities of the welathiest is advocated or will result from Paul's policies)... is the opposite of what you, Ron Paul, and his supporters advocate. You will unwittingly create the impetus for....only if we're fortune enough to have it evolve peacefully....the rise of a reactionary figure very similar to HUGO CHAVEZ !
dksuddeth, I'm only going to contest a small portion of the opinions in your post. If you post supporting information for your opinions, I'll be happy to read it and respond.... I am struck by my perceived consequences if your politics. If your views were to prevail in the US, the rich would be richer, and large areas of the US, where it is unprofitable or unreasonable due to risk vs. return considerations...to distribute electric power to remote, difficult to access, or sparsely populated areas....millions would still be living without it.....
In Ron Paul's congressional district:
Quote:
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/...s/GG/hcg7.html
....The population of Gonzales County remained at between 28,000 and 29,000 inhabitants from 1900 into the 1930s, then began to decline during the Great Depression, falling to 26,075 by 1940. Though <h3>rural electrification began in the county in 1940</h3> and the first farm-to-market road was completed in 1945.....
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...896996,00.html
Friday, Nov. 08, 1963
....During his week, Goldwater unnecessarily got himself into some steamy political water. Often in the past, he had advocated that the Tennessee Valley Authority be turned over to private enterprise. Now he answered a needling letter from Tennessee's Democratic Representative Richard Fulton, who asked the Senator if published reports that he still favored that proposition were true. To Fulton's astonishment, Goldwater wrote back, affirming that he was "quite serious in my opinion that TVA should be sold." Tennessee Republicans, who have high hopes of carrying their state for Goldwater next year, blanched in dismay. Wailed one: "TVA ranks right behind God, mother and country down here, and Barry knows that damned well; yet he still goes around shooting from the hip."...
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...876152,00.html
Marching Through Dixie
Sep. 25, 1964
.....>In Knoxville, Tenn., where folks display bumper stickers reading KEEP TVA —I'D RATHER SELL ARIZONA, Barry said he would "stand by" his recent statement that TVA's steam-generating plants should be sold to private interests. Anyhow, he said, his views make little difference, since even if he were President, he undoubtedly would be overruled by Congress.
>In Atlanta, Barry issued a scathing denunciation of the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote reapportionment ruling. Of all the cities in the South, Atlanta, which has long chafed under state malapportionment's giving rural districts top-heavy power in the state legislature, is the one place where the Supreme Court ruling is reasonably popular.
> In Charleston, W.Va., Barry blasted Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty as a "phony, vote-getting gimmick" and "a raid on your pocketbooks." West Virginia, of course, is practically a casebook study of the depressed area. .......
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...939534,00.html
The Limits That Create Liberty & The Liberty That Creates Limits
Oct. 09, 1964
....No longer is the Court derided as a collection of nine old men too fragmented in their opinions to be relied upon to set national standards. The present split is between those who believe in "judicial restraint"—men who feel that real power should reside with elected officials and that the Court may eventually destroy itself by assuming too much—and so-called "judicial activists"—those who insist that the far-ranging provisions of a great Constitution have never yet been fully applied to American life and that the Constitution would die if not continuously restudied in the light of modern life.
The activists now hold the upper hand. In a flood of decisions that run counter to state laws and local customs, the Court has in the past ten years:
> Overturned state-enforced racial segregation in public schools and other public facilities.
> Banned the official use of prayers and Bible reading in public schools.
> Forced state criminal courts and police to match the strict standards imposed on federal courts and agents by the Bill of Rights.
> Ordered all state legislatures to give equal representation to cities and suburbs by apportioning their voting districts strictly on the basis of population.
Plea for Understanding. "The Court is making decisions boom, boom, boom. Many of them are too absolute to fit a country of 190 million diverse people," frets a Yale professor. "Of all three branches of Government," says Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, "today's Supreme Court is the least faithful to the constitutional tradition of limited Government and to the principle of legitimacy in the exercise of power." ......
....No other Justice has less formal education; <h3>yet none is more widely read than the libertarian Alabamian</h3> who deprecates himself as "a rather backward country fellow."
Black has lived to see the "Warren Court," as it is known out of respect for its Chief Justice, more accurately called the "Black Court" after its chief philosopher. No other Justice in the past 25 years, says Stanford Law Professor Gerald Gunther, "has cared more, worked harder and done more to persuade his colleagues to accept his constitutional philosophy." In fact, no other Justice in the Court's entire history has lived to see more of his dissents turned into doctrine—doctrine that construes the Bill of Rights more generously than ever before as the open society's chief antidote to Government indifference or suppression.
Savory & Unsavory. If the Court has yet to officially accept some of Black's pet views of the Constitution, it has nonetheless swung his way ever since Chief Justice Warren came to Washington in 1953 and pulled together a divided Court that, within a year, unanimously outlawed school segregation. Eisenhower Appointee Warren soon added a solid third vote to the activist bloc of Black and William O. Douglas.......
......Though no Court bloc has ever been solid on every issue, today's 5-4 majority has produced a Court with an unprecedented solicitude for individuals, the unsavory as well as the savory. The Court's hallmark is a greater-than-ever willingness to act in the face of a commonly overlooked fact: the failure of Congress for generations to pass laws enforcing the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.
The key provision of that amendment reads: No States shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Congressional failure to implement this left the Court as the only forum for vast social complaints—the Negro's demand for justice, the city dweller's cry for equal representation, the growth of Government power that stirs concern for individualism and the very quality of U.S. life.
Whether or not the Court should have acted on those complaints may now be less important than whether it has been too doctrinaire in how it acted. A look at the record:
∙ RACE: Since the 1954 school decision, the Court has struck one........
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9534-3,00.html
(3 of 11)
......Arming the Union. The reasoning by which the Court arrived at such state-taming decisions is rooted in the burgeoning nationalization of a country that was first united only by the Articles of Confederation, a compact so loaded in favor of the 13 independent-minded states that Congress could not tax, regulate commerce or conduct foreign relations. Only for the sake of national survival did the states by 1789
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9534-4,00.html
(4 of 11)
reluctantly ratify a Constitution that gave the Federalist central government a minimal power to function. As double insurance against federal tyranny, the states by 1791 approved the Constitution's first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, the first eight articles of which were specific guarantees of individual liberty against the powers of the Federal Government.
To Federalists, the Bill of Rights seemed superfluous; the original Constitution was a model of caution that contained careful checks and balances on the powers of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. As for the Court, Alexander Hamilton called it "the least dangerous branch." It would have "no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society; and can take no active resolution whatever."
Federalist Hamilton was partly wrong, or perhaps dissembling. If the Constitution stressed stability, it also permitted change. If the Government had limited power, it also needed more power to serve a nation that was growing in every direction. The swelling union required a unique umpire to allocate that power. The umpire was, and has been, the Court.
Eternal Expounding. In his audaciously activist regime (1801-35), Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court's right to review acts of Congress and State legislatures; he spelled out the supremacy of the Supreme Court over state courts in constitutional cases, as well as congressional authority over interstate commerce—a power so vast that it is now used, among other things, to regulate agriculture, limit prostitution, and forbid racial discrimination in public accommodations.
The states fought Marshall every inch of the way. When the Supreme Court ruled itself able to review state criminal cases, Virginia's chief justice accused Marshall of "that love of power which history informs us infects all who possess it." Marshall persisted. "It is a Constitution we are expounding," he said in 1819, holding that it must ever adapt to national change in order to "endure for ages." ......
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...755843,00.html
8-to-1 for TVA
Feb. 24, 1936
......Even the deepest-dyed Liberal hardly gave a hoot that day about Brown et al. v. State of Mississippi—three Negroes convicted of murder, whose statements, claimed to have been made when they were brutally whipped by deputy sheriffs, were admitted in evidence as confessions. The Chief Justice of the U. S. was not disinterested. With vibrant voice he called attention to the "due-process" clause of the Constitution, declared, "The rack and the torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand," set aside the sentences. Having contributed to the dramatic tension by putting human rights first, Chief Justice Hughes took up property rights next. The case: minority preferred stock-holders of Alabama Power Co. who asked that the Supreme Court void the sale by that company of a transmission line to TVA on the ground that TVA was unconstitutional. The long-awaited hour had come. The crowd craned their necks to catch every word. The Chief Justice spoke with unusual deliberation, pausing now & then to peer at his audience. The first question, he explained, was whether the property of the minority stockholders was endangered, whether they had a right to sue. He declined to let any technicality stand in the way of their right to sue, declaring: "We should not seek to find means of avoiding ruling on a constitutional question." The second question, he declared, was whether Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals (whence the debated power line leads) was legally constructed. Both because it was built under Wartime laws to provide power for making explosives and because it was designed to improve navigation, the Federal Government had been entitled to construct it. Therefore the dam was not illegal. Third question was whether the Government had the right to sell power created at a legal dam. Said the Chief Justice: "The Government has no less right to the energy thus availed by letting the water course over its turbines than it has to use the appropriate processes to reduce to possession other property within its control, as, for example, oil which it may recover from a pool beneath its land and which is reduced to possession by boring oil wells and otherwise might escape its grasp. Fourth and final question was whether the Government had the right to buy transmission lines to take power from its legal dams to market. Said Chief Justice Hughes: "The question here is simply as to the disposal of that energy, and the Government rightly conceded at the bar in substance that it was without constitutional authority to acquire or dispose of such energy except as it comes into being in the operation of works constructed in the exercise of some power delegated to the United States. . . . The Government is not using the water power at Wilson Dam to establish any industry or business. "It is not using the energy generated at the dam to manufacture commodities of any sort for the public.
"The Government is disposing of the energy itself, which simply is the mechanical energy, incidental to falling water at the dam, converted into the electric energy which is susceptible of transmission."
Therefore, since all else is legal, the Government may acquire transmission lines to take its by-product to any "reasonable market." ...
|
[/quote]
Last edited by host; 10-13-2007 at 11:58 AM..
|