As I watch, I think of the cost and cringe.
I find the initial approach more impressive;
https://www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_403.pdf
The Green New Deal
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
I find the initial approach more impressive;
https://www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~iasu2012/pdf/iaSU2012_Proceedings_403.pdf
Thanks for the explanations. Informative...you lost me at why not a king. But I am going to put that in the noddle and toss it around a bit...I do agree there are a lot of absolutes, and there should never be. Not sure what’s what’s wrong with gun rights and small government. If I remember correctly they used to work for like six months then go back home to their real jobs...hhmmm a lot of meat to digest here....loading screen....loading screen....Hey, Lester!
Right up top, I put “patriot” in quotes because it no longer signifies what it once did. It has been hijacked by a stream of “conservative” thought which brands itself and its ‘policies’ as patriotic in opposition to other points of view, which they brand as “unpatriotic”.
They wrap it up in the old language of honor, pride, freedom, but it amounts to little more than absolute opposition to abortion, absolute support and expansion of gun rights, a simple idea of ‘smaller government’, and “that old-time religion”. There’s a bunch of feeder-fish issues stringing along, but that’s the spine of it.
I put “conservative” in quotes because they’re bomb-throwing radicals, they ain’t conserving anything.
I put “policies” and “smaller government” in single quotes to indicate that these are more inchoate notions than well-defined or understood.
Hope that’s not TMI...
Federal or state, the question is the same. For what it’s worth, I don’t see the federal government taking all the power the way some people do, but that’s probably obvious.
Bet you didn’t expect all that - neither did I!
I think I know what you mean about the voting issue, in CA there is often only one party on the ballot..
Do you not like the sovereign state business?
because small government doesn't exist anywhere, never has
you have weak governments, those are plentiful
shrinking government is part of the new conservative mantra, it's chanted but means nothing
Trump's government isn't smaller, not even a pretence that it will be smaller, deficits are beginning to mount
So we should not strive to decrease the size of the government? there are many many “ departments and agencies” that can be eliminated. Rather we should have a large powerful central government?The deficit is “beginning” to rise Ha! Have you not been paying attention for the past several decades?
Limited government has been a debate for many many years, and not just in the U.S, so I think it’s more of a people thing not a new conservative mantra.
Limited government has been a debate for many many years, and not just in the U.S, so I think it’s more of a people thing not a new conservative mantra.
you already have a large powerful central government
question is 'is that the best government?'
smaller could be a fine thing, if there was any real world evidence it was beneficial
there seems to be a lot of acceptance from some circles that small government is good
but real world evidence is lacking, and in fact is countered by the experience with weak(small) governments
i.e. all the immigrants coming in our southern border, they're coming from small weak governments
in practice people hate small government, at least many seem to
get back to the deficit later, that's plenty for a post
it did that, along with oppressing its poor population
if you were rich/right family you were made
if poor? best solution was to get the hell out
which many did, likely both my ancestors and yours
St. Phatty
Active member
If I was on the Green New Deal committee, I would have a big committee meeting in the desert where they're having all the desert flower blooms.
Big deal for bird-watchers etc. & impressive enough to be appealing to the general public.
If you own land, the Green New Deal is sort of like Fantasy Football, for carbon sequestration.
I wonder if they're planning to fine people for running generators.
If they had 1/10 of a clue they would grease the skids for generators running on alcohol & get rid of Federal controls on alcohol production.
So that people can produce their own automobile fuel.
Just as 1/3 of the world does it. e.g. Brazil.
I think they should require all the Green New Deal advocates to take the Math SAT & the GRE for science grad school.
Otherwise they're wasting our nation's time dreaming about stuff that can't be built.
They should just offer a minimal tax credit, like 10%, for any private sector company that can make real stuff that does real things, that forward the genuinely good parts of the GND.
They're buried in all the idealistic un-realistic liberal GND enviro-speak somewhere.
[/B][/B][/B]
And that's it. Otherwise it's like me showing up at Studio 54 in my homeless person's jacket, expecting to be shown a table.
Not very realistic.
Or the GND is like a [/b] without a - it takes up space, wastes energy & bandwidth, and doesn't do anything.
How's that for a Rant ? Do I win some Green New Deal Dollars ?
Big deal for bird-watchers etc. & impressive enough to be appealing to the general public.
If you own land, the Green New Deal is sort of like Fantasy Football, for carbon sequestration.
I wonder if they're planning to fine people for running generators.
If they had 1/10 of a clue they would grease the skids for generators running on alcohol & get rid of Federal controls on alcohol production.
So that people can produce their own automobile fuel.
Just as 1/3 of the world does it. e.g. Brazil.
I think they should require all the Green New Deal advocates to take the Math SAT & the GRE for science grad school.
Otherwise they're wasting our nation's time dreaming about stuff that can't be built.
They should just offer a minimal tax credit, like 10%, for any private sector company that can make real stuff that does real things, that forward the genuinely good parts of the GND.
They're buried in all the idealistic un-realistic liberal GND enviro-speak somewhere.
[/B][/B][/B]
And that's it. Otherwise it's like me showing up at Studio 54 in my homeless person's jacket, expecting to be shown a table.
Not very realistic.
Or the GND is like a [/b] without a - it takes up space, wastes energy & bandwidth, and doesn't do anything.
How's that for a Rant ? Do I win some Green New Deal Dollars ?
Ya the U.S central government sure has grown over the years, it’s a damn shame!
They are coming from oppressive governments...if they were weak the people would take it back and not be eating out of trash trucks and zoo animals.
St phatty you definitely get some green dollars but I would opt for co2 shares when they get established...there is so much money to be made off this co2, global scare....as long as the children keep sleeping...just ask al Gore.
White beard, sovereignty of states? No? Yes? .
Hypocrocy knows no bounds...
Hypocrocy knows no bounds...
White Beard
Active member
Hi, Lester
It was state sovereignty that took down the Articles of Confederation: each state was its own nation, loosely (con)federated for (guess what?) the common defense, courts of justice, and and law enforcement.
It turned out to be herding cats. Every state was ready to turn its back on the others if the ‘grievance’ was big enough. It was, counter to an opinion expressed elsewhere, a weak central government - weak by design, and so unsurprisingly incapable of running itself, much less anchoring a nation.
The collapse of the Confederation is how we ended up with the constitution we have (barring later amendments). The warring blocks that had to be appeased were the industrial/financial North, known at the time as the Money Power, and the agricultural South, known at the time as the Slave Power. The “3/5ths of a Person” compromise is a result of this, as is the Tenth amendment.
This didn’t end the problems, largely because there was no semi-sanctified notion of states rights vs other states, like you’d think. The slave states insisted that the non-slave states honor and enforce the laws of slaves states rather than their own laws, and had no interest in how non-slave states considered this usurpation of their own sovereignty. This is part of the hubbub and general nastiness that eventually saw the rise of the rebellion.
If someone tells you that the rebellion and the secession that sparked it were not about slavery, that someone is spreading a lie, even if they don’t know it. Every seceding state issued proclamations detailing the central role and divine ordination of slavery as practiced here upon the Africans. They were highfalutin’ if not high-minded, longwinded and in purple prose, these historical documents still exist and can be examined. There was NO doubt in the Slaver mind as to the central nature of the issue.
We didn’t hear about states rights again until after the phony surrender at Appomattox, at which time we “learned” that secession and bloody rebellion were suddenly *not* about slavery at all but about “states’ rights, specifically the right TO secede and make war on the remnant.
It’s been about “states’ rights” ever since, which is why you never hear about the people’s rights: people aren’t important, the state is important. Not the federal state, but the State of Virginia, the State of Mississippi, of New York, of Delaware...each trying to outdo the others in near-feudal autocracy.
We still hear about it now, mostly about how an overarching solution to an overarching problem would be better solved by breaking it into chunks and letting the States whatever ‘fix’ they deem suitable.
I spent an entire year in high school learning about the twisted ways in which my state had made sure that only wealthy white property owners could gain and hold elective audience in the era of civil rights.
If it was ever hidden, it was hidden from outsiders: no one down here believed any of that mess, they were going to keep Jim Crow around by hook or crook. And largely, they have.
Broad strokes, but there you have it.
Not sure what hypocrisy you’re referring to....
It was state sovereignty that took down the Articles of Confederation: each state was its own nation, loosely (con)federated for (guess what?) the common defense, courts of justice, and and law enforcement.
It turned out to be herding cats. Every state was ready to turn its back on the others if the ‘grievance’ was big enough. It was, counter to an opinion expressed elsewhere, a weak central government - weak by design, and so unsurprisingly incapable of running itself, much less anchoring a nation.
The collapse of the Confederation is how we ended up with the constitution we have (barring later amendments). The warring blocks that had to be appeased were the industrial/financial North, known at the time as the Money Power, and the agricultural South, known at the time as the Slave Power. The “3/5ths of a Person” compromise is a result of this, as is the Tenth amendment.
This didn’t end the problems, largely because there was no semi-sanctified notion of states rights vs other states, like you’d think. The slave states insisted that the non-slave states honor and enforce the laws of slaves states rather than their own laws, and had no interest in how non-slave states considered this usurpation of their own sovereignty. This is part of the hubbub and general nastiness that eventually saw the rise of the rebellion.
If someone tells you that the rebellion and the secession that sparked it were not about slavery, that someone is spreading a lie, even if they don’t know it. Every seceding state issued proclamations detailing the central role and divine ordination of slavery as practiced here upon the Africans. They were highfalutin’ if not high-minded, longwinded and in purple prose, these historical documents still exist and can be examined. There was NO doubt in the Slaver mind as to the central nature of the issue.
We didn’t hear about states rights again until after the phony surrender at Appomattox, at which time we “learned” that secession and bloody rebellion were suddenly *not* about slavery at all but about “states’ rights, specifically the right TO secede and make war on the remnant.
It’s been about “states’ rights” ever since, which is why you never hear about the people’s rights: people aren’t important, the state is important. Not the federal state, but the State of Virginia, the State of Mississippi, of New York, of Delaware...each trying to outdo the others in near-feudal autocracy.
We still hear about it now, mostly about how an overarching solution to an overarching problem would be better solved by breaking it into chunks and letting the States whatever ‘fix’ they deem suitable.
I spent an entire year in high school learning about the twisted ways in which my state had made sure that only wealthy white property owners could gain and hold elective audience in the era of civil rights.
If it was ever hidden, it was hidden from outsiders: no one down here believed any of that mess, they were going to keep Jim Crow around by hook or crook. And largely, they have.
Broad strokes, but there you have it.
Not sure what hypocrisy you’re referring to....
White Beard
Active member
Well, *private* government, don’t you know...kings, dukes, lords of the manor....
We didn’t *like* private government, not really much way to avoid being robbed, raped, and/or ruined by the ruling class.
I see you’re not including the people shanghaied onto Navy ships, nor the boys in the red coats who “took the King’s shilling”, pretty sure there were more than 7000 of them. A real “ownership society”...if you were an aristocrat. Not so sweet if your (great) grandparents were transported to Oz.
G `day WB
Early days circa 1800s in Oz it was Irish convicts ruled over by British soldiers .
That created a Church of England vs Roman Catholic divide .
Early 20th century the Captain of the Australian Rugby League team was omitted from the tour of the UK . [He was a Catholic ... ]
Thanks for sharin
EB .
White Beard
Active member
I disagree. Limited government is not at all a bad idea, I honestly never remember anyone trying to sell the idea of big government: Occam’s razor is in fact a thing: do not multiply entities needlessly applies as much to government as any other process.
The problem is that “limited government” is code for a captive government, a government too weak to defend itself from internal enemies. A government ripe for overthrow, a government closer to the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation than the Constitution of the United States of America.
I *DO* believe it is a conservative mantra, and I do believe they have been at it awhile.
I don’t believe THAT is what any of *US* want, I don’t believe that’s what the founders envisioned. But I could be wrong.
Last edited:
White beard, I am really enjoying your posts, I disagree with some, I agree with some...there is so much meat in what you have said I just have a few questions...and try to get back to more of it soon....
What party was the party of the slave holders?
Were only Africans slaves?
We’re the Irish enslaved?
Did other Africans sell those slaves on the shores of Africa? (Maybe someone should go over there and have a talk with their great great grandchildren, some might be in the U.S., we should find them)
Slavery has been the labor force for many thousands of years, I wonder how and who stopped it in America. Now we primarily have the sex slaves no one seems to talk about....guess that slavery isn’t so meaningful as the slavery that no longer exists.
As a wise man once said, “ they don’t want to see us unite, all they want to do is keep us fussing and fighting”. THAT is how they keep their power. I sure hear a shit load of “ ism’s” and race talk from the liberals.
They use projection better than I have ever seen or heard.
What was the number 3/5’s? What was that about?
When you raise taxes on the 1 percent do they not pass that on to the consumer? Aren’t the 1 percent the job creators? So they never really pay much in taxes. If a person goes to school for many years, goes into debt to pay for school, creates a business with all the risk on them, not much sleep, stressed, working everyday to make sure the business succeeds and the employees are payed well, after 20 years of this they finally make 10 million, 100 million, should they then be punished and have have a shit load of their money taken? If so then where is the insentive....
If state sovereignty is all together bad why do people get upset when the feds raid cannabis clinics that are legal on a state level? The squabbling between states is why the central government was given the power to regulate interstate commerce. How is limited government a code for captive government? That doesn’t even make sense. A limited government does not mean a weak government and i can’t Find the code you are referring to.
Oh and .....Walls work.
