Muslim Migrants warn Germans their days are numbered

[Sean Hayden]

Absolute rubbish. Look at the size of governments of conservative vs progressive governments over time. Conservative governments are ALMOST ALWAYS higher spending and often higher taxing than progressive governments.

Marxist propaganda lie.

And furthermore, who do you think plays the role of moral police for conservatives? The government does. Without the government holding back social progression the people would have accepted things like gay marriage, fully legal abortion, decriminalised drugs, equal rights for all, stem cell research, etc etc a long time ago.

Did you know that Democrats were the ones supporting slavery both before and after the Civil War?

No? Didn't think so.

Democrats are the most authoritarian, oppressive, meddling cocksuckers in American history. They don't want to leave anyone alone, they want to control absolutely everything and everyone because that's how they stay in power.

Marxists know this, but always lie about it and spew propaganda rather than facing the truth.

At least rev used recent, well known examples.

And what "recent, well known examples" would that be, pray tell? The only thing he did was pull a bigoted assertion out of his ass and not even have the courtesy to wipe the feces off of it before slapping it up here. History proves him wrong, period. Leftists (which includes Progressives) have presided over the largest increases in the size of government worldwide for more than a hundred years now, in the US ever since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson infected us with progressivism.

No, he's right about the Republican moral policing. But they don't have to be that way. I think I know where you're coming from. I just think it's going to be near impossible to define the function of government so that it doesn't lend itself to a reasonable expansion, in order to fill the roles you wish it wouldn't e.g. social safety nets (did you throw up a little there )

[pErvinalia]

Don't think too hard about where he is coming from. It's coming from an insane ideology that views Bush and pretty much everyone else to the left of Pinochet as a progressive. That's how he can justify saying that progressives have increased government spending. Never mind the fact that his whole premise is spastically nonsensical.

[Seth]

No, he's right about the Republican moral policing.

What "Republican moral policing" are you referring to, precisely. Cite the statute please.

But they don't have to be that way. I think I know where you're coming from. I just think it's going to be near impossible to define the function of government so that it doesn't lend itself to a reasonable expansion, in order to fill the roles you wish it wouldn't e.g. social safety nets (did you throw up a little there )

Well, even the Founders knew that government is a dangerous thing. It's like fire, used in moderation and kept very carefully contained and controlled and it's useful. But let it escape that tight control and it quickly becomes a conflagration that consumes everything in its path.

That is why our Founders worked as hard as they could to create a system that is explicitly intended to keep government as powerless and small as is humanly possible, lest it burst its legitimate boundaries of action and consume everything and everyone.

And that's what's happened in the US in the last 100 years thanks to Progressivism, and our Republic is in grave danger and has been for some time. But now it's in even worse danger than before because the next President will likely get to appoint five Supreme court justices, and if we allow the left to pack the court with leftists our republic will be over and it WILL be time for the long knives to come out.

What's desperately needed is a constitutional amendment from the states or from a constitutional convention that redefines the Commerce Clause authority of the Congress to remove Congress's ability to meddle in the affairs of the states where there is not an actual passage of goods or persons across a state line, and more importantly, Congress must be restricted in its lawmaking powers with respect to interstate commerce to the role of adjudicating disputes over interstate commerce (the actual passage of goods or persons across a state line and nothing else) that are brought to it by the legislatures of the disputing states and nothing else.

This amendment would instantly eliminate 90 percent of the federal government, from the EPA to the Commerce Department to the FBI to the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and any other federal regulatory agency whose authority to regulate is based in the Commerce Clause, which is almost all of them.

Power would then devolve to the states, where it was intended to reside to begin with, and Congress would stick to arbitrating disputes among the states rather than taking upon itself powers that it was never granted to regulate on a national basis.

That will solve most of the problems of the US literally overnight in large part by simply eliminating most taxes paid to the federal government and keeping the money in the hands of those who earn it and under the governance of the representatives of those wage earners at the state level, where the voters have much greater power and control over their governance and how their money is spent...within their own state.

[Seth]

Don't think too hard about where he is coming from. It's coming from an insane ideology that views Bush and pretty much everyone else to the left of Pinochet as a progressive.

That's because they are Progressives.

That's how he can justify saying that progressives have increased government spending. Never mind the fact that his whole premise is spastically nonsensical.

Except that it's absolutely true and right in line with Progressivism as expounded by Woodrow Wilson. Every President since Wilson, with a few notable exceptions like Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, was a Progressive who was interested, overtly or covertly, in expanding the power and reach of the federal government and very little else.

Interestingly, post-WWI, an economic debacle created Woodrow Wilson, who was the father of modern Progressivism and a tyrannical despot as well who jailed hundreds of thousands of Americans for merely objecting to his insistence that the US enter the war in Europe, was reversed dramatically when Harding, and then Coolidge when Harding died suddenly in office, became was one of the most prosperous and economically vigorous times in American history. When the ruinous income taxes imposed by the Wilson administration to pay for the war were cut, the economy roared to life and actual collected revenues soared as income tax rates went from 77% under Wilson to 25% under Coolidge. It's called the "Roaring Twenties" for a very good reason, and that reason is that Harding and Coolidge CUT the size of the federal government and the economy responded by improving immediately...right up until the crash of 1929 and the subsequent Progressivism of FDR that made the great depression worse than it needed to be and perpetuated it almost a decade longer than necessary.

Progressives in one disguise or another (including Bush the Younger, whose political icon happens to be Woodrow Wilson) have expanded the size and reach of the federal government at ever step and every opportunity, thus attempting to destroy the system that was designed to prevent exactly that from happening.

The fruits of Progressivism are what we face now: a debt-ridden government that cannot pay it's own bills, an economy that is floundering and drowning under the weight of burdensome and flatly destructive federal government policies, uncontrolled illegal immigration, rampant unemployment that's being hidden from the public by fudging the numbers by simply ignoring the unemployed who have given up looking for work, a manufactured energy crisis that threatens to beggar the economy even more by causing energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" under Obama's plan (that's a direct quote from Obama by the way...he intended it to happen, which is treason in my view), and a corrupt federal government that currently consumes a quarter of our GDP and spends more than it takes in as a rule, not an exception.

The federal government expanded dramatically in the 20th century and has continued growing in the 21st. Between 1900 and 2012, federal government receipts increased from 3.0 percent of the economy’s output to 16.5 percent, and federal expenditures rose from 2.7 percent of economic output to 24.0 percent. Source

That "2.7 percent of economic output to 24.0 percent" was started by Progressives under Wilson and perpetuated by Progressives ever since, including Republican and Democrat Progressives alike.

[DaveDodo007]

Absolute rubbish. Look at the size of governments of conservative vs progressive governments over time. Conservative governments are ALMOST ALWAYS higher spending and often higher taxing than progressive governments.

And furthermore, who do you think plays the role of moral police for conservatives? The government does. Without the government holding back social progression the people would have accepted things like gay marriage, fully legal abortion, decriminalised drugs, equal rights for all, stem cell research, etc etc a long time ago.

I agree with you though times change and you are talking about the past. I have never supported a GOP candidate until Trump the most socially left front runner. The conservatives introduced gay marriage after three labour governments. There was always too much religion in right wing politics but that is fading whilst the left is embracing Islam at a rate of knots that I find disturbing.

[pErvinalia]

Don't think too hard about where he is coming from. It's coming from an insane ideology that views Bush and pretty much everyone else to the left of Pinochet as a progressive.

That's because they are Progressives.

That's how he can justify saying that progressives have increased government spending. Never mind the fact that his whole premise is spastically nonsensical.

Except that it's absolutely true and right in line with Progressivism as expounded by Woodrow Wilson. Every President since Wilson, with a few notable exceptions like Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, was a Progressive who was interested, overtly or covertly, in expanding the power and reach of the federal government and very little else.

Reagan oversaw the greatest expansion of government spending in modern times. Reality really means nothing to you, does it?

[Sean Hayden]

No, he's right about the Republican moral policing.

What "Republican moral policing" are you referring to, precisely. Cite the statute please.

But they don't have to be that way. I think I know where you're coming from. I just think it's going to be near impossible to define the function of government so that it doesn't lend itself to a reasonable expansion, in order to fill the roles you wish it wouldn't e.g. social safety nets (did you throw up a little there )

Well, even the Founders knew that government is a dangerous thing. It's like fire, used in moderation and kept very carefully contained and controlled and it's useful. But let it escape that tight control and it quickly becomes a conflagration that consumes everything in its path.

That is why our Founders worked as hard as they could to create a system that is explicitly intended to keep government as powerless and small as is humanly possible, lest it burst its legitimate boundaries of action and consume everything and everyone.

And that's what's happened in the US in the last 100 years thanks to Progressivism, and our Republic is in grave danger and has been for some time. But now it's in even worse danger than before because the next President will likely get to appoint five Supreme court justices, and if we allow the left to pack the court with leftists our republic will be over and it WILL be time for the long knives to come out.

What's desperately needed is a constitutional amendment from the states or from a constitutional convention that redefines the Commerce Clause authority of the Congress to remove Congress's ability to meddle in the affairs of the states where there is not an actual passage of goods or persons across a state line, and more importantly, Congress must be restricted in its lawmaking powers with respect to interstate commerce to the role of adjudicating disputes over interstate commerce (the actual passage of goods or persons across a state line and nothing else) that are brought to it by the legislatures of the disputing states and nothing else.

This amendment would instantly eliminate 90 percent of the federal government, from the EPA to the Commerce Department to the FBI to the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and any other federal regulatory agency whose authority to regulate is based in the Commerce Clause, which is almost all of them.

Power would then devolve to the states, where it was intended to reside to begin with, and Congress would stick to arbitrating disputes among the states rather than taking upon itself powers that it was never granted to regulate on a national basis.

That will solve most of the problems of the US literally overnight in large part by simply eliminating most taxes paid to the federal government and keeping the money in the hands of those who earn it and under the governance of the representatives of those wage earners at the state level, where the voters have much greater power and control over their governance and how their money is spent...within their own state.

I don't know why you're denying the Republican's opposition to same sex marriage, abortion and the decriminalization of drugs. It's literally the god damn platform in Texas for example. Where the Republican side was unanimous in its opposition to te gay marriage, and continues to fight easy access to abortion.

I can only imagine that it's because some of your personal heros have been more enlightened. But they don't run shit do they?

As for the rest of your reply, -DUDE- you went from some guy living in his sister's basement to a constitutional lawyer in the span of a few posts! I'm just jealous. But seriously, you're going to have to slow it down and give a higher level view if you want me to keep up. I'm in my grandma's basement and a total commoner; thus my Marxist's leanings.

All I can say without serious research is that it doesn't appear that you've dealt with my objection: the type of expansion of government under discussion is reasonable given any definition of the function of government. (I'm pretty sure the assumptions required to make that work are agreed upon by nearly all who live in democracies. But if not we can discuss.)

[Seth]

Reagan oversaw the greatest expansion of government spending in modern times. Reality really means nothing to you, does it?

You have no connection with reality, so fuck off.

[Seth]

I don't know why you're denying the Republican's opposition to same sex marriage, abortion and the decriminalization of drugs. It's literally the god damn platform in Texas for example. Where the Republican side was unanimous in its opposition to te gay marriage, and continues to fight easy access to abortion.

So what? Democrats want to ban guns, destroy the coal and oil industry, force people to participate in things they find morally abhorrent, and put up with illegal aliens taking their jobs. So much for your attempt at moral superiority. Democrats and leftists are far more authoritarian and fascistic than Republicans ever have been. Remember what that false icon of leftist red herring arguments about Hitler being a right-wing fascist actually was: NAZI stands for the German National Socialist Party.

As for the rest of your reply, -DUDE- you went from some guy living in his sister's basement to a constitutional lawyer in the span of a few posts! I'm just jealous.

You come late to the game, I've been a constitutional expert for decades because I bothered to read the document and study it and the relevant case law and history. I live with my sister and her family because Obama destroyed the economy and getting a decent job at my age is nearly impossible, so I had no choice other than to live under a bridge somewhere.

But seriously, you're going to have to slow it down and give a higher level view if you want me to keep up. I'm in my grandma's basement and a total commoner; thus my Marxist's leanings.

I just sponge off my sister and brother in law, who owe me, not the government. And they invited me to live there, I didn't force myself on them and I pay my own expenses.

All I can say without serious research is that it doesn't appear that you've dealt with my objection: the type of expansion of government under discussion is reasonable given any definition of the function of government.

It's both unreasonable and unjustified, given the definition of government the United States was set up using. I expect we differ on the definition of the proper function and authority of government and I suspect our differences are based in fundamental moral and ethical differences. My moral and ethical beliefs, and the beliefs upon which the United States was founded, do not include the government being responsible for, or authorized to provide for the personal needs of individuals, particularly not by stealing the property of others to fund those needs.

The Founders would be aghast at the notion of income taxes, "social security" and socialism because they understood just how debilitating it is to be forced into the dependent class and how quickly a dependent class becomes the majority and therefore how quickly the society will fail because no government can possibly provide everything that everyone wants forever...or even for very long...no matter how much it robs the rich to give to the poor.

Alexander Tytler said it well some 250 years ago:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

Government exists to keep the peace and provide the liberty that individuals need to prosper and succeed, and quite literally nothing more.

The Declaration of Independence says it perfectly where it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Governments are instituted among men to secure their rights, not to rule them or dictate to them how they are to live. So long as individuals live together peaceably, the government has no function at all. Only when conflicts arise, be they philosophical conflicts calling for adjudication of disputes or open warfare requiring the government to defend the nation, or part of it, does government have any legitimate purpose. It is not government's province to tell people how to live or what to do, much less provide anyone an income, nor is it government's province to meddle in commerce and trade between individuals other than to act in its role as a policing power to prevent the initiation of force or fraud.

Whenever government usurps the rights and liberties of its citizens and becomes their ruler rather than their servant, it becomes hostile to freedom and an enemy of the people who granted it power in the first place and must be opposed and placed back under control or destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up like we did in 1776.

(I'm pretty sure the assumptions required to make that work are agreed upon by nearly all who live in democracies. But if not we can discuss.)

Not hardly, and certainly we can discuss it.

Let's begin with the simple fact that "democracy" is a great evil and blight upon humanity. The United States is not a "democracy," it's a constitutional republic that utilizes certain very limited democratic processes and methods, all of which are tightly constrained against the ever-present threat of the emergence of the tyranny of the majority and are intended to maximize the freedom and protect the rights of individuals, consistent with ordered liberty, against the desires of the majority to take what does not belong to them.

Socialism has no such fundamental constraints, it values the collective above the individual and disrespects the individual and his rights and freedoms to whatever degree it deems necessary in order to satisfy the desires of the tyrannical majority, which is why, like democracy, it's a great evil and blight on humanity that has killed, in the last century or so alone, more than 100 million people.

If you disagree, you can start by providing a rational argument in support of the fundamental socialist belief that the collective is entitled to determine the disposition of the life and property of the individual over that individual's objections.

Discuss.

[pErvinalia]

Reagan oversaw the greatest expansion of government spending in modern times. Reality really means nothing to you, does it?

You have no connection with reality, so fuck off.

Sorry, I was wrong. Him and Bush I were second behind the Bush II.

[Seth]

Reagan oversaw the greatest expansion of government spending in modern times. Reality really means nothing to you, does it?

You have no connection with reality, so fuck off.

Sorry, I was wrong. Him and Bush I were second behind the Bush II.

Yes, you were wrong, as you usually are, and your apology is hollow.

[Sean Hayden]

My moral superiority is most certainly not diminished by your finding my objections to your behavior intolerable. What else would my moral superiority feel like to you? No, you've just disagreed in the manner of an obstinate child. I'm not superior to you because like you I also want you to stop some behavior, and that's that. But the behaviors being objected to, and the reasons for objecting to them are not the same.













I enjoyed your post Seth, and I look forward to taking a crack at it. I hope you can stomach my humor. I find the snobbish bitch to be a nearly irrisitable voice.

[pErvinalia]

Reagan oversaw the greatest expansion of government spending in modern times. Reality really means nothing to you, does it?

You have no connection with reality, so fuck off.

Sorry, I was wrong. Him and Bush I were second behind the Bush II.

Yes, you were wrong, as you usually are, and your apology is hollow.

The graphic shows you the rate of growth of government expenditure is always higher under repubs than dems. Further, when you convert to spending as a proportion of GDP, Reagan was the highest other than fdr during the war and Obama during the GFC (both totally understandable for the non-retards amongst us).

[JimC]

Seth, this is an official warning that your constant stream of "fuck offs" is not acceptable. One more, and you will face a very lengthy suspension.

[Seth]

Seth, this is an official warning that your constant stream of "fuck offs" is not acceptable. One more, and you will face a very lengthy suspension.

Under what provision of the FUA, pray tell? Or are you just making stuff up as you go, because the use of "that term" was officially approved long ago.