• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

Apropos of nothing--but consistent with the thread--I hate the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan about the so-called anti-democratic nature of our system of government (the senate, the electoral college, etc.) but are all too happy to allow an unelected cadre of 9 Ivy League (and Notre Dame) lawyers create rights for us where none exist under our system of limited government.
 
im sure if you keep saying it enough, your specific concept of "limited government" will come true
 
Colonel Angus said:
Lulz - Yet another educator molding young hearts and minds under the guise of their preferred lefty ideology.

Seems to be a familiar theme around these parts.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what I said that was factually incorrect. Feel free to quote 1776 commission if you would like. I could shred the conservative “historians” who wrote that drivel to pieces.
 
WakeBored said:
Apropos of nothing--but consistent with the thread--I hate the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan about the so-called anti-democratic nature of our system of government (the senate, the electoral college, etc.) but are all too happy to allow an unelected cadre of 9 Ivy League (and Notre Dame) lawyers create rights for us where none exist under our system of limited government.
Click to expand...

So pre-1803, got it.
 
PhDeac said:
The Constitution is the biggest move towards "big government" in this country's history. And we've kept the framework even as the country has gotten bigger and the rights of citizenship has broadened. Anybody knows that as an organization grows in size, purpose, and aspirations, it requires more infrastructure, rules, and enforcement. This country started with limited government because it was a small new country that restricted the rights of citizenship to a small group of people. It was a start up that grew into a global enterprise. Of course it wasn't going to keep the same structure.
Click to expand...

ImTheCaptain said:
except the founders didn't really have a limited government; it was just proportional to the size of the people it had to govern. all the same fucking rules are in there.
Click to expand...

ChrisL68 said:
When you were fetching your water from a well and taking a shit either in the outhouse or out in the woods, the need for a governmental regulatory framework was not nearly as sophisticated
Click to expand...

ImTheCaptain said:
im sure if you keep saying it enough, your specific concept of "limited government" will come true
Click to expand...

It's almost like you think the concept of limited government means nothing more than the number of people on the payroll.
 
Last edited:
WakeBored said:
It's almost like you think the concept of limited government means nothing more than the number of people on the payroll.
Click to expand...
You are the one who specifically mentioned the regulatory state.
 
WakeBored said:
Apropos of nothing--but consistent with the thread--I hate the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan about the so-called anti-democratic nature of our system of government (the senate, the electoral college, etc.) but are all too happy to allow an unelected cadre of 9 Ivy League (and Notre Dame) lawyers create rights for us where none exist under our system of limited government.
Click to expand...

This dumbass still thinks the so-called conservatives on the court aren't activist judges.
 
WakeBored said:
Apropos of nothing--but consistent with the thread--I hate the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan about the so-called anti-democratic nature of our system of government (the senate, the electoral college, etc.) but are all too happy to allow an unelected cadre of 9 Ivy League (and Notre Dame) lawyers create rights for us where none exist under our system of limited government.
Click to expand...

Shooshmoo said:
This dumbass still thinks the so-called conservatives on the court aren't activist judges.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people here have mentioned that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. You’re a Republican. The Supreme Court has been controlled by Republican appointees for your entire life. Yet even you complain about it.

So I need a Junebug history lesson. What is the “regulatory state” and when did it start? What was the dividing line between “limited government” and “big government?”
 
WakeBored said:
They embrace the Founders’ notion of a limited government and hate the regulatory state that the federal government has become. Perfectly consistent ideas, really.
Click to expand...

The part that is really confounding here is that the founders' notion of a limited Government and hate for a regulatory state was only in regards to the central government. The struggle inherent in the complexity our constitution is largely about partitioning power between states and feds. They envisioned that the congressional reps would be representatives of the state and they did not envision party politics where the executive branch was aligned lock stepped with a portion of the legislature in fighting with the other portion of the legislature. Individual rights were an after thought added as amendments.
 
birdman said:
The part that is really confounding here is that the founders' notion of a limited Government and hate for a regulatory state was only in regards to the central government. The struggle inherent in the complexity our constitution is largely about partitioning power between states and feds. They envisioned that the congressional reps would be representatives of the state and they did not envision party politics where the executive branch was aligned lock stepped with a portion of the legislature in fighting with the other portion of the legislature. Individual rights were an after thought added as amendments.
Click to expand...

The other thing is how could the Founders ever have imagined a country of 330,000,000? It would take days to send a letter from Philly to NYC. Now you can push a button and send correspondence to a hut in Himalayas. They also codified slavery.

We have no idea what they would have said or done today.
 
birdman said:
Individual rights were an after thought added as amendments.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this characterization, but I think it can be a little misleading. The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought because the Federalists wanted the federal government to have the power to suppress individuals' speech, religion, etc. It was an afterthought because the Federalists thought it was so obvious that the enumerated powers of the federal government didn't extend to the ability to suppress individuals' speech, religion, etc. that a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. It was only when the Anti-Federalists began gaining traction in their arguments against ratification by highlighting the absence of a Bill of Rights that the Federalists began to change their tune.

I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with any of that, but I highlight it because it relates to the concept of a "limited" government.
 
Junebug, if only a few individuals had such "obvious" rights, then individual rights were an afterthought and actually something we're still fighting about to this day.

Still waiting for an answer to these: What is the “regulatory state” and when did it start? What was the dividing line between “limited government” and “big government?”
 
 
I can't believe they didn't know about Weaver.

I wonder if the remnants of the Lincoln Project will move over to Tim Miller's organization, Republican Voters Against Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top