Thursday, January 22, 2009

Federal Government - The Two Dogs Way!

Subhead: Rebuilding the Republican Party for Dummies (The Republican Party leadership)

This shall be short.

The Republican Party is asking for suggestions to win back Congress and the White House. Uh, guys, you had both. Where did YOU go wrong? Lemme tell ya'.

You GREW the friggin' government LARGER. That is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the promises that you made and why we elected you. Do you see the disconnect, huh? Would you like a starting point of how you can build the party?

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!

There is NO Department of Education, Health, Welfare, Greenie-Green-Green-Green, nothing about abortion, marriage, gay, straight, OR bi-sexual (if that is even possible), no food stamps, free housing, corporate bailouts, no student loans, individual bailouts, animal bailouts, Social Security, or any combination of the above.

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!

There are no faith-based initiatives, no football stadiums, no NASA, none of these things are in there.

What we want is for y'all to....

FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!

We do not want you to shrink social services, we want them ENDED! We do not want FEMA to handle disaster relief, we want it ENDED. We do not want to send food to Indonesia, Africa, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, or any place in THIS country. We want the Federal Government out of our damn lives!!!

The Fed is there for one purpose, to protect the citizens of this country. Not the criminal aliens that have walked right past you, the true actual citizens. To accomplish this, you need the military, intelligence, border security, and the administrative actions that go along with that.

NOT ONE MORE DAMN THING.

Now, if you do not think that these are CONSERVATIVE principles, you do not know what Conservatism IS. True "Ronald Reagan Conservatism" is for us to take care of the other things ON OUR OWN, without Federal Government ANYTHING.

If you will quit taking MY money and giving it to Democrat bullshit, I shall greatly appreciate it and actually be able to afford to pay for my kid's college, buy a plotter, maybe hire a secretary, and take a friggin' vacation. Guess what? All of the above would benefit someone else in this country, too. BECAUSE I WOULD DO THOSE THINGS HERE, MORONS!

Look, I know that all the touchy-feely stuff is great to get morons to back you, but those are not the people that SWEPT you into office in 1994. By. A. Landslide. Remember The Contract With America? The hope that y'all would fulfill those promises swept you into office. YOU RENEGED. Not us. The party leadership and the elected Republicans screwed up, not us.

Dang, do you even want us back? Or would you rather be a bunch of John McCains that everyone hates? Well, except for the soon to be bankrupt New York Times.

Please take the time to comment.

16 comments:

christinajade said...

THANK YOU!!!

i just don't understand why it seems so hard for these people to follow the Constitution. i mean, dang. they all take an oath to uphold it, right? so how does it become so easy for them to forget?

as usual, you state the obvious. the government has gotten too big for its britches. its like cleaning out a closet, everyone understands that. when it gets too full and there's no more room and crap is spilling out into the room, you get rid of stuff, right? right.

time for the government to clean out the closet.

Two Dogs said...

Sorry for the screeching, I got to watching the #rncchair Twitter feed and they were talking about giving the "bailout" money to churches and stuff like that. I just wanted them to see that they were promoting the same thing as Democrats, just sending the money somewhere other than to the people that earned it.

Very frustrating.

One Salient Oversight said...

Naturally I think you're wrong TD. And here's why:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

Tax in order to provide for the General Welfare?

The Constitution does not give any explicit limit to what the government can spend its money on. Nor does it give any limit to the amount of tax revenue it can raise. Nor does it explicitly (or implicitly) support the notion of "small government".

Amendment 16 says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. What? Nothing there about what congress is not allowed to spend money on? Why? Perhaps because the framers of the constitution expected the government to spend money in order to provide for the common welfare!

You state The Fed is there for one purpose, to protect the citizens of this country, yet the constitution actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The writers of the constitution did not limit it just to "the common defence".

But, of course, is this an "originalist" interpretation. Why not check out the Federalist papers on this?

Federalist Paper 30 starts off with:

IT HAS been already observed that the federal government ought to possess the power of providing for the support of the national forces; in which proposition was intended to be included the expense of raising troops, of building and equipping fleets, and all other expenses in any wise connected with military arrangements and operations. But these are not the only objects to which the jurisdiction of the Union, in respect to revenue, must necessarily be empowered to extend. It must embrace a provision for the support of the national civil list; for the payment of the national debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury. The conclusion is, that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another.

All this disproves the notion that the constitution limits the federal government to spending on national defence only and exclusively. Rather, it proves that congress may raise taxes and increase revenue in order to promote general welfare and institute domestic tranquillity.

christinajade said...

keep screeching. and honestly, might need to use a bigger font for that...no one seems to get it.

frustrating is a good word. f*cked is another. which is how i see the party if they don't get back to basics pretty dang quick.

Two Dogs said...

OSO, please do take the time to define General Welfare. And in the process COMPLETELY ignore the Tenth Amendment which defines exactly the implicit and explicit functions of the Fed. If they are not in the Constitution, the do not belong to the Fed.

The Federalist Papers are completely unimportant. I actually wrote some letters once, too. They have the exact same weight that the Federalist Papers have. Those are NOT law, they are politicking and were written anonymously, those should be used as LAW? Wow.

OSO, Representative John Mayo's article posted here, that came from today's local paper is the same thing as the Federalist Papers.

Dang, the font is the biggest on Blogger.

One Salient Oversight said...

General Welfare is to be defined apart from common defence because the writers of the constitution wrote two different things.

Common defence - that's what you say the constitution only defines.

General Welfare - that's what you say the constitution doesn't say.

I would define general welfare as laws or spending bills that make America better for its citizens.

10th amendment doesn't apply because "General welfare" is already present in article 8 and the preamble.

The use of the Federalist paper is to show that an originalist reading of the constitution shows that the federal government has the right to tax and spend on areas not defined as defence.

Moreover - if common defence is all the Federal government does... then why the need to elect representatives and senators? Under the "common defence only" model, they would do nothing except the occasional spending bill for the military.

The 1st congress passed the Census act of 1790. Where does that fit into "common defence only"?

One Salient Oversight said...

1806:

Cumberland Road spending Bill.

The Federal government builds a road.

Two Dogs said...

I do understand your confusion OSO, but I do not interpret "welfare" to be a full fledged steal and support type of thing. The word actually means "well being." There are plenty of ways to accomplish this task, but that terminology is not to be singled out without the rest of the document. The Constitution is based entirely on individual rights as well as state's rights.

Your definition is not congruent with the Constitution of the United States and the way you define it was unheard of in the late 1700s. Your definition is probably only seventy years old.

Now, to say that an Amendment doesn't override the ideology that is contained in the original document that proceeds it fails to recognize exactly what an amendment is. The amendment came AFTER, so if they thought of general welfare in your new terminology when writing the original thing, then the Tenth Amendment supersedes General Welfare. Simple, you are wrong on both counts. That is pretty easy to understand, too.

The Census is to determine the density of people for the sole purpose of determining the number of Representatives to an area. This was already discussed even before the Declaration of Independence was signed, if you read anything about the debates that proceeded the signing, you will find those references as well. If you would study the United States Constitution, you could get some insight into it. I am not a Constitutional attorney, but I can read and it is written for the common man to understand. it is very easy for someone to read and pick up entirely on the key points.

I do appreciate your argument. Try to focus on the fact that nothing is mutually exclusive and that document was put together by a bunch of folks that had relatively nothing in common. They were all about protecting their freedom. Your philosophy kills freedom, the exact opposite of what the United States is about.

Well, it used to be anyway, until a bunch of collectivist losers started voting.

Two Dogs said...

Yes, OSO, the federal government actually completed mapping the country, they were actually in the process of doing that well before the War. George Washington was kinda involved as well as quite a few of his officers. They also funded Lewis and Clark's expeditions, as well as Daniel Boone's and many others. And quite frankly it was mainly for military purposes and to see what the Hell was here. Is there a point to this exercise? Or is your goal to do nothing but attempt to prove me wrong?

Just to let you know, I live in the United States and reading and studying US history is a huge hobby of mine. Do you really want to go there? There really IS a reason that I have the philosophy that I do.

Good luck in your studies.

One Salient Oversight said...

Mate, I know your country's history and constitution better than you. I know how to read things impartially and you don't.

Your problem is that you have taken up a recent ideology and then reapplied it backwards to make history and the constitution fit into the ideology.

"Your philosophy kills freedom" - I love it how you move so quickly from disagreeing with a person to attacking them personally. These are the tactics of the angry and bitter.

christinajade said...

gettin' kinda catty in here...

anyway, just thought i would add my little two cents worth...read this carefully...

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

"welfare of the United States" meaning the welfare of the country itself, NOT the citizens of the country. i believe that those guys that wrote the Constitution never even had the thought that someone might need or even WANT to depend on the government for food stamps or a welfare check. in those times, people worked for their survival and the survival of their families. didn't the original mayflower peeps come over here for freedom from government controlled stuff? in that case it was religion, but the general idea stays the same.

make modern interpretations however you like, i think you have to go back in time to the ideals of the day and think the way the men who wrote the document thought.

and i don't think they would approve of what we've got going on. just sayin'

christinajade said...

seems as though peeps from other parts of the world think that going back to basics, following the constitution letter for letter, and FORCING Americans to step up to the plate and take care of their own is a horrible idea.

seems as though there is a worldwide jealousy of Americans who get everything from medical care to food to housing for free. could that be it? i have not read OSO who is commenting here, so i hope he/she does not take me personally on this one.

i guess what i'm getting at here is the lazy factor that has come into play in the United States. it is no wonder we have gotten so far away from the ideals of our founding fathers. look at us. how many of us grow our own food, worry about splitting wood in the winter, have to go milk a cow? not many. what happened to WORKING for survival?

i think this is where the problem begins and ends with people from other countries who have studied us in textbooks. America is seen as the land of golden opportunity. and the rest of the world sees that as the opportunity to let someone else care for you.

or i might be wrong.

Two Dogs said...

OSO, for the record, when someone states facts it is not a personal attack. I merely told you exactly the final outcome of your philosophy. If you feel that is a personal attack, that is certainly your prerogative. Quite frankly, your opinion on what you feel that I am doing is completely unimportant to me.

Yes, my philosophy is a very recent one and one shared by every single one of the signers of the Constitution, death to defend personal, individual liberty. In the overall scheme of history, it is very young.

Yours dates back to the earliest recorded history. Yours is the philosophy of the architects of the pyramids and prior folks that sought nothing but to enslave other people.

To say that your grasp of the Constitution and the philosophy contained therein is superior to mine is stunningly asinine. But, thanks for your words, it makes great strides to define my philosophical lessors.

Hopefully this helps you see your errors.

Christina, you are so very right in every word in your comment. OSO is an economic socialist and has every right to his wants. He lives in Australia and is irrelevant.

Two Dogs said...

Christina, how in the Hell did you get your comment to post BEFORE my last one? That is weird and now my last comment is timed after yours. Are you hacking the blerggywebs?

In your comment you mentioned chopping wood, milking cows, and growing food. I admit that I have done all of those in the past, now I do not even push the button to roll down the window in my own car. I pay my pool boy, Lamar, to do that. But, I AM his employer.

I do agree with you that the pioneering spirit is dying in our country. We have a disinterested population that is not necessarily lazy, but has accepted the idea that this IS the land of milk and honey and they should be given the fruits of their better's labor. There is a definitive refusal to accept any philosophical responsibility for one's individual life.

The United States is turning away from our moral high ground and those that believe as the socialists do are winning the battle with their anti-intellectualism. People refuse to think.

christinajade said...

how DID i do that? something somewhere is a bit odd...hmmm...

yeah, the milking and farming are extreme examples for modern times, but not so much for when the Constitution was written. that was kinda my comparison, times are just different. BUT i honestly don't think that the theory should change with the conveniences of the modern era.

you are so right, the pioneering spirit is dying at a pace that could be compared to the black plague. therefore the lack of thought by all the little sheeple.

by the way, can you send lamar to paducah this spring to open my mom's pool? i hate doing that crap...

Two Dogs said...

Christinajade, I don't think that the philosophy should change in modern times either. The advances in production from the farmers in the United States has given everyone in the world the means to feed themselves, too. Alas, there are so many countries that roll over and expose their bellies to others for food that it is sickening. The entire continent of Africa follows OSO's economic philosophy. It has delivered exactly what he desires, too.

The philosophy of the folks that came to the US and started life anew is the end-all, be-all of what we can accomplish if there is that pioneering spirit. It is slowly becoming more rare because everyone thinks that is not a philosophical benefit for everyone. They are wrong.

As far as the pool is concerned, I have found that the best thing to reduce the amount of labor required to maintain them is a whole bunch of fill dirt.

Post a Comment