I listened to various commentators on various TV stations after The Vote. One of them (on MSNBC) explained that Democrats DO NOT like rules. Republicans DO like rules and love setting them. Dems not so much.
I do think the recent circus showcases different personality types. I think, on the right, we do see a greater respect for the rule of law, a greater respect for the protection of individual rights and a firmer resolve for the rules of fair play.
I think, these differences show up often in the debate. Some rules are important. Some rules are ingrained in our psyche. I don't see anything wrong with that and there is much right in it.
No one really wants to be seen as a rule follower or a goody two shoes. But,sometimes right is right and transcends the need to be popular and accepted by the nay sayers, at the moment, the right seems to get that.
Before I read all of the posts I will say the following.
The rules of U.S. Law are found in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the Constitution. The DoI say "the Governors obtain their Power from the Consent of the Governed" while the Constitution's Article 6 paragraph 3 reminds the Governors that they are only public Trustees.
Although the people voted congress into position congress are still responsible to what the people say (especially via Petitions) and over 500 attorneys and judges had signed a petition Wednesday to be sent to congress by noon Thursday saying Kavanaugh was not judge material because of his attitude during the hearing. (It is said that after the first hearing he went back to a speech he had written before being coached by Trump.) Even if he is such of a wimp to listen to Trump's coaching of his behavior he definitely isn't judge material.
With that said, there is no reason congress should have over ridden the will of the masses of protests and ESPECIALLY the petition by people of the same judicial position he was in. The rule of THE SUPREME law they DID NOT obey in this situation.
It was not under the jurisdiction of the people but of the president. It was congress's job to approve or disapprove of the nomination. Not the public's.
The protestors really need to simmer down.
We elected the president and it was his decision, with the approval of the elected officials in Congress.
Get over yourselves, you protestors ...
(Unless this is how you are earning your bread, (being paid by Soros) for a couple of days or weeks ... hopefully not years... what a miserable life. Have fun with that.
PS You can't fool us.)
Anyone who is a trustee of others are, by definition, supposed to get directions from those they are responsible to, that includes Presidents [although Congress is supposed to actually speak to him about it] Congress [especially since we have instant communicating] automatically is supposed to ask of the people how decide concerning every decision they have to make.
If the people present a fault in the president's decision he is supposed to ensure a thorough investigation and not play the "I'm in charge here and dictate what I want."
The person in the position needs to respect it, they are not above the will of the people. Follow the Constitution and Washington's words "lets raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair..." and get people who demonstrating actual wisdom and not the wisdom of "selfish desire" to be important but, as Jesus said, "let him who is greatest be the servant".
As I stated elsewhere, the current conglomeration of what makes up the Democratic Party is not what it used to be, not what many over-50 voters still believe it to be, its not the Party of the 70s or 80s anymore.
There was a time when I was non-aligned, and considered the value of the candidate and what they said they represented, because I conceived of us all as Americans, wanting what was best for our country.
I no longer see things as I did, I see a Democratic party whose components are a mixture of people who want to tear down everything this Nation has ever stood for, who want to demolish the 'patriarchy', or who want to abolish Capitalism to install Communism, or new age SJW fanatics, or Globalist no-border no-police types. They all unite as 'Democrats'.
What we witnessed Kavanaugh (and the country) go through, is an example of the new Democratic party, and their new 'normal'.
What used to be the normal, was the politicians sold out American interests to the highest bidder:
Now one Party is evolving (or devolving depending on perspective) into something much more dangerous to our Republic.
For a growing majority of them, the rules, the laws, social norms, civil decency, no longer matter.
What I've said since I began studying the Constitution in 1987-'88, this nation is completely unconstitutional in its governing. It began to implement parties before the constitution and didn't abolish them, as "to form a more prefect union" require, after ratifying it. We have gotten so far from it now that the nation doesn't coin its own money and use We The People as collateral to borrow what we need from the privies bank the Federal Reserve.
We The People doesn't use the petition (Amendment 1) nor the power as the overseers of our public Trusted officials as Article called them and Amendment 10 provides, So what in the world can we expect from the people we are supposed to control and we don't. Since we don't control them and the Constitution has demanded, along with the Declaration of Independence's "the governed obtain their power from the Consent of the Governed", they they will accept the bribes from corporations and get rich while recycling the people WE have allow to have such power from one place to another while we only protest.
There is no reason to be talking about what we don't want if we re not willing to do our part and control them. Why don't we just continue to allow then to f _ _ _ over us like they are, words gets us nothing but frustration.
Kathryn , can you spell ?
Dems = A-N-A-R-C-H-Y ...................Prove me wrong , anyone ?
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
As Democrats are in favor of ever greater governmental size, control and power, it would seem that Republicans are closer to anarchy than Democrats. Not that "closer" means close at all; just closer than Democrats.
Yes, less and less government leads to anarchy. That would be the Extreme Right.
On the Extreme Left, less and less self-reliance and more and more government-reliance leads to ... hatred of rules? why?
In order to rely on government less and one's self more, self-restraint, such as taking turns, following safety procedures, following laws, etc is required: All things needed to live in a free and civilized society.
Now, I am sure Democrats like rules as much as the next person, but the LEFT wants to program the naive Democrats with the notion that only Republicans like rules, in an attempt to guide them toward anarchy ... not in government but in society. Then, as society unravels, more and more order will be required. Eventually the government will be needed to step in and restore order. This is what has historically lead to fascism. See Mussolini.
Gosh, golly, gee, Wilderness, once again I find myself in agreement with you. Dems are the ones who passed regulations regulating big corporations like banks and communications. Repubs are the ones who passed deregulation allowing for the big corporations to swallow up the smaller ones and the consolidation of the big communications companies.
It is a trick. I hope the Democrats will not buy into such nonsense. Society as a whole benefits from rules.
Thats what the Constitution is.
The Constitution provides the rules and boundaries required to live in a free society. Boundaries and freedom are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
THIS IS NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
not admitting that democrats want the destruction of our traditional form of government in America , replacing it with their perverted idea of socialism is the conservatives sin . At least some in their party have ba}}s enough to admit it as we go on debating whether they are playing nice or not.
First though they have to incite anarchy . It's the time to fight back though using our traditional governing system . VOTE , vote ,vote .
You state: The Conservatives are in denial that Democrats want to replace the US Constitution with some form of socialism.
You blame Conservatives of ignorance (Sin) and the Liberals
for attempting to destroy the foundations of our Democratic Republic.
Will either stand-up for themselves here? deny or elucidate?
Conservatives, I think know full well what is going on with the LEFT.
PS The LEFT (as opposed to Liberal) equals Soros and the Billionaire-members of the New World Order, I would presume.
Ed, per the Preamble's "to form a more prefect union" there should not be parties separating neither the House nor Senate of this what is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC nation. Therefore there should not be the traditional government presently in place.
The traditional governing system doesn't work by vote, Vote, VOTE but by Amendment 1's filing of petitions as more than 500 attorneys and judges did prior to Thursday's vote. That should have registered as The Voice of The People.
Good points LTL , I think quite possibly that what we're going to see though is the dropping of traditional conservative 'rules of fair play ' if you will , the past left's adoption of dirty tricks may not come to fruition from traditional republicans , I don't think the hardliners are capable of that ,
Trump followers and supporters are not tied to the same rules , I still believe Trump is the answer that members of both parties 'once upon a time' wanted to arrive in DC.and yes to" drain the swamp " , when I was young and a naive liberal we all wanted that too. No so much Trump the man BUT Trump the movement or phenomenon .
To heck with the rules , IF socialists want that , if Grandpa's democrats will stand by and bend to it then lets throw off the gloves and bring the two parties to extremely clear lines of demarcation . Political correctness be damned , traditional politics be damned , I'll ask you all this , IF democrats are to so easily throw aside traditional politics in the functioning of our democracy HOW ELSE can any opposition win any rounds against them ?
We can't. " No more Mr. nice guy "
You're right about "no more Mr. Nice Guy." When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and the Repubs blocked even a hearing for him, the Dems. through aside the gloves and decided to play dirty, too, by fighting fire with fire. Like it or not, as Brett Kavanaugh reminded us, you reap what you sow. (Stupidly reminding us that he was a thorn in the antagonistic and prolonged "Whitewater" investigation.)
No president should be allowed to nominate into the next administrations timeframe . Look how long it took with Kavanaugh's confirmation , besides Obama was destructive enough on the court picks . Liberals in America chose this style of political or procedural armageddon now they can live with the return fire ?
When a president is in power, it should be his choice. The country shouldn't have to wait for months, even years, in courtesy to the next one.
+1. Let the president nominate and then, without undue wait, let the Senate do it's job and either confirm or reject for good reason (reason outside of "This one won't legislate from the bench the way I want him to").
There is a reason for terms of office , eight years is enough and then a balancing effect has to take place , if at the eleventh hour a nomination is granted ,it doesn't mean it has to be confirmed immediately or at all , ..........two parties can play the same games and often do ,no ?
You don't make sense. Republicans violated Obama's timeframe. His term wasn't up. Kavanaugh should have died of old age before he was confirmed. Republicans bully, Dems fight back, then Repubs scream unfair!
You're the one that doesn't make any sense , If Kavanaugh's confirmation took three months or more , how long do you think it would have taken Obama's nomination ? He nominated him in October didn't he ?
Besides Obama's nominations screwed up the courts enough , you don't want activists of either ideology in the courts you want centrists .
Yes. Like the Communist Manifesto and the US Constitution offer solutions to the same dilemma, just in different ways.
I think some like rules. Others, regulations. Now, although the mob of the left aren't following codified regulations they are following regulations, none the less. The problem is those regulations which govern the mob aren't time tested, and true. They are making them up as they go with no clear idea of how it will affect society in the long run.
¶∆÷ Imagine the world without Religion^... and over sizeme Governments too. Tell me it isn't true.¶∆÷
"Anarchists want chaos and mayhem!"
Not me , I want honestly and no harm, same for anarchist I know.
Just about all aspects of government - are the source of most of the chaos, mayhem, violence and poverty.
2. "Anarchists are against roads and schools.
"Without Roads we ain’t going anywhere, government or not. If roads or schools are needed, then private companies will build roads and schools. Supply and demand, capitalist free market, not a unlawful Corperationism of greed. Where there is a profitable will, there is a profitable ways and roads that better meets the consumer’s needs, in the name competitive profiteering..
3. "In a nation of anarchy, nothing stops people from robbing, raping and murdering other people."
Stop oppressing me with your anti-murderer discrimination. An anarchist heros are like Gandhi or Ron Paul. Not the usual left or right empire terrorists who kill mostly innocent people than any other groups.Violence is likely more omnipotent now than it would be naturally because our prisons are like crime schools, our government’s drug war turns millions into criminals, and our state-suppressed job market creates financial and cultural desperation. The current system is ineffective; so why not think outside the box to find a new and more solution.
4.Big major corporations practically NEED government to retain cronyism dominance over the small business sector.
Without their weapon of government to pass the laws, tax statutes, and regulations that the corporate “elite class” needs, nothing is stopping the small-business sector from absorbing the entire consumer base AND employee supply. For a major corporation to stay wealthy without a government, that corporation would have to provide superior products at superior prices in comparison to its competitors. Corporation to effectively dominate the population by force, one of 2 things would have to happen: that corporation would have to have more money than everybody else put together, or the people would need to see the corporation as a legitimate authority. The former is pretty much impossible without a state, and the latter generally only applies to religions and governments.
5. "Anarchists are violent.”
Say it to my face and I’ll have you arrested & executed. Are we violent? News to me. Most anarchists I’ve met are SO uncompromisingly peaceful that they find taxation - taking money under threat of arrest - to be too violent to be considered tolerable in a civilized society. At the core of anarchism is the Non-Aggression Principle; the idea that no person should initiate force against the body or property of another.
According to Castlepaloma:
1. Are peaceful, non-violent and non-aggressive.
2. Advocate free-trade and competitive profiteering.
3. Feel the state creates violence, poverty, mayhem, chaos and desperation.
B. Anarchists have come to the conclusion that the state is the cause of many of society's ills:
a. Giving them power and favoritism over small business.
a. Through the drug wars.
b. Through imprisonment of criminals in jails/prisons where they contribute to the higher education of the other inmates.
3. Suppression of the job market:
a. Gives corporations power and dominance via laws, tax statutes and regulations.
4. Empire terrorism, Right and Left:
a. Killing of innocent people.
5. Forced taxation:
a. Under threat of arrest.
It is my understanding that The US Constitution addresses thèse issues and gives people the ability to check them through democracy, which functions more fairly in an extended republic, and the vote: majority voice, checked by the many voices, and the electoral college.
We vote for and agree to taxation for the benefits we desire, therefore it is not forced upon us.
Men are not angels. Anarchy would work if we were.
Anarchist purport to be angels, apparently.
KLH, your understanding of the constitution can not be because you have read it because there is no "electoral college" when one comprehends amendments 12 and 24 together.
We don't vote for the taxation except in the cities [it is supposed to be done in the nation and states] since those elected are supposed to inquire of us [especially since we have instant communication today] before they make any national decision. Therefore taxes are forced upon us.
What you are saying would be true if the constitution was being followed.
Anarchist would not agree or I.
An anarchist likes rules just
Not Legitimized Rulers.
First, I have to define how I’ll be using anarchism: I mean “no ruler” — not “chaos”, not “no hierarchy”, not “rule by majority”, etc. If olig-archy means few rulers, and mon-archy means one ruler, then an-archy means without rulers.
A Profound Concept!
Throughout most recorded history, people have been governed by rulers' law - the law that rulers chose to impose. The people had no real choice. America's Founders believed liberty too precious to entrust to leaders. For the first time ever - in America, in 1787 - the people themselves prepared their own written Constitution - one of laws and people, not of rulers. It not only protected them from the harmful acts of other citizens; more importantly, it protected them from their own government. The framers of the Constitution recognized that governments are made up of imperfect people who tend to abuse power. Thomas Jefferson said:
"In questions of power ... let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
For the first time in history, a people had put a stop to rulers' tyranny and provided a base for a genuinely free people. Part of the Miracle of America lies in this concept - a government of laws, not of rulers.
It seem the Founding fathers acted more like anarchist and open to all Religions. As long as they don't break these rules.
"An anarchist likes rules just Not Legitimized Rulers."
LOL Is that because then anarchist gets to make the rules without any interference from those that don't like them?
Yes, because Religion also contributed to self-assumed boundaries. We are allowed to guide our own wills, (which we do have. Some say we don't. Of course we do!!!! This is what "Divine Providence" gave us to guide wisely.)
Without moral rules, which stem from The love of Go(o)d and The Golden Rule, one cannot maintain a democratic and free society.
Smear campaigns are the result of breaking the rule of being honest, and instead, bearing false witness.
Good to know, Nancy!
How do you smear a no face secret societies?. How do you bully a bully God who lives up in the sky? If it's a mob rules you got 99℅ Judeo-Christian congress with many unethical judgments. The only free and democracy rules is through the 80℅ collective consciousness of the people. As it always has been throughout human history, Regardless of all the false heirachary leaders throughout history.
If we understood most religions, Christianity especially, that is exactly what the message is. As Castlepaloma said, the Constitution intended to be run like a family's system of moral ethics. That is why they told Israel to carry lawbreakers out of the city and stone [to be taught the ways of environmental living beings] to the death of their lack of moral ethnics.
We have the illusion of "free will" most of the time but every life of everything is predestined by Karma, but, if the people who believe in "free will" lived like it we would never have come to the place where the world [civilization] has to be destroyed.
Castlepaloma, you interpret the constitution like I do, a document that bounds the elected to the will of the people, however, during that time it was almost impossible to do it therefore when Washington said "Let us raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair, the event is in the hands of god" he was looking forward to these times when the "Son of Man" is to use the Constitution to bring world peace, as said in my "politics/Treason-USA-Style" hub.
They got the concept for the Constitution from the Native Americans who lived by that structure of governing. That is why I've interpreted parts of it as my "The-U-S-Constitutions-Spirit" shows.
Yes American native play an important part in the Constitution. They never declared Yahweh as their Creator God.
Why is GOD not in the Constitution? Founding Fathers” were wise to pass historical centuries of of the most horrific troubles with selecting one God or a chosen Religion. Constitution used by Academics, legislators, judges, and ordinary citizens all frequently seek to validate their opinions and policy prescriptions by identifying them with the statesmen who led America to nationhood has help balance US.
President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. This phrase was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the phrase entered circulation on October 1, The 84th Congress later passed legislation.
In God we trust - Then why do we trust private centralized bankers to print their own money and make us pay for it. The Founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves from the real, owners of the US. Who own US and these so called, policing world leaders. I see little backbone connected to the brain to stop them. They should hire the leader of Iceland - a woman. To show US how to lock up bankers who drove their country into bankruptcy, yet today they are ranked one of the happiest countries in the world.
In the Declaration of Independence, God is referred to as "Divine Providence."
It ends thusly:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our Sacred Honor.
53 members of the Continental Congress signed the document including John Hancock, (the first and biggest signature) Sam Adams, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin.
... and where was George Washington?
He had been given command of the Continental Army by the Continental Congress. The Continental Army helped fund the war with loans, paper money and financial aid from France.The colonies broke free of Britain thanks to their mutual cooperation and the Continental Congress.
The main duty of the executive branch is to be in charge of the military forces and defend the nation. How would people defend the territory where they live, be it small or large, against foreign invaders if no governing body existed?
With The People being united they would only require a central focus point, people suggest any laws needed and why and to suggest support for the militia should a threat to the nation arouse, the purpose for the taxes, along with ensuring everyone has "their general welfare needs".
The U.S. Founding Fathers left their Judeo-Christian heritages and become advocates of the Enlightenment religion of nature and reason called "Deism". The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”
Participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founding fathers.
How ever Declaration of independence open ended interpretation of “Merciful Providence” or “Divine Goodness can not Justified European white men inhumane action using the bible to create
the Native American genocide and black salavery. Beside it's extremely Hippocratical. To just kill one man to prove killing is wrong is Hippocratical.
Survival of the fittest.
Its part of being on the earth plane.
Sorry about that.
Survival of the fittest allows the killing of only the weak of the heard and is supposed to translate to civilized human heards.
That is how to use terms one doesn't know what the principle means as it is intended to be here in "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abomination of The Earth" sa she was proclamed to be become.
Since human, woman nor man CAN change the events destiny has for any specific time in civilization's unending cycle the for United States of America and this conversation we are having in her can not be altered. SHE and us have to do it exactly this way.
Doesn't that suggest that everyone in the nation is expected to mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our Sacred Honor"? That is how I read it which means there is not to be any separation between any human/woman and any others who are members of this nation like the Preamble's "to form a more perfect union".
The Constitution is not the Bible, for heavens sake. It was agreed upon to get away from the tyranny of Britain and live independently.
The Constitution gives us government and, at the same time, the means to protect us from it.
It is written saying it is agreed upon by the writers and We The People of the land are to follow in their footsteps so that tyranny can't exist here.
the highest good is that which is for the sake of itself and something else.
Are you an Anarchist then, nothing you are saying is the comprehension of the constitution.
Here are a few more principles rather than ever changing rules from Rulers.
1. Non-Aggression Principle; the idea that no person should initiate force against the body or property of another. Taxation is theft, and we're not for all forms of theft. I never approve of income tax and do not vote. It is against my will
2. "Anarchists are on drugs."
Sometimes, like any other community. Anarchist are skeptical about Government s “all drugs are evil” campaign, except legal drugs that kill you greater than illegal drugs. Like marijuana – for instance - political ranting based on NIDA and FDA do not approve marijuana has any medical value. Plus say cannabis/hemp is schedule 1 with no drug effect. Most Americans disapproves of making marijuana schedule 1, So, there goes the democracy down the crapper again or greater collective consciousness of most Americans.
3. "Anarchists, don't know anything about politics."
This one just couldn't be further from accurate. Anarchists knowledge of politics would be like atheist knowledge about Religion, well educated to protect ourselves.Anarchists see the patterns of history and we see government objectively for what it is; a violent, monopolistic, for-profit mafia, rather than this collective “we” deity of “society” that we’ve all been taught – mostly by the government school system. Anarchists are dead serious about the future of humanity.
4. "Nobody would protect us from foreign invaders."
All base our entire ideology on weakness and defenselessness. Lol. Brilliant.
In a stateless society, even more people would probably be protecting us, doing a competitively better job at it. Instead of one monopolistic military of several million troops funded by theft, they go to war with support of thousands of other Corperations. War is only profitable when you have tax streams to exploit. Imagine 318 million people can buy machine guns from the local store with no screening process. The main reason the people of other countries call Americans the ugly American is because US government is constantly screwing them up the Butt..
5. "Anarchists think they know everything."
We don't. Unlike Republicans, Democrats, etc., we DON'T pretend to know what's best for you and how you should live your life. We think you should live however you deem fit for yourself, so long as you do not aggress against somebody else. We have theories, only “master plan” we have for society is that there should be no aggression, which equates to no government. We all are aware of ethics like no stealing or murdering broken by the powers to be more than any group. Let society function however it wants.
6.. "Anarchy means no rules."
The discriminates against me, was that I refused a war sculptures for GW Bush,...just not hateful enough. He refused my US green card, nothing short of oppression. Anarchy have rules, laws more based on ethics, just not rulers." You're still held accountable to your actions by whomever. Wal-Mart are decided by Wal-Mart. Your apartment complex decides the laws of your apartment complex. If Wal-Mart sexually molest their customers; most people wouldn’t shop at Wal-Mart anymore. Unlike governments, businesses aren’t likely to impose unreasonable or ridiculous rules on people, making it so unfree. With decentralized law, you have complete personal choice in what rules are and are not a part of your life. Companies would have to gain success based on a reputation for fair rulings, rather than imposing a near-monopoly on arbitration by force, like the government courts do, enabling no shortage of corruption.
There will be rules wherever there are people that want rules, because satisfying consumer demands is the only stable way to continuously gain money if you are not a Government.
It is true, if there is no government, the people have all the power.
But men are always un-just toward one another. How do you fight the uncooperative? Those who are so uncooperative they do not treat others as they would have others treat them?
If a child is raised in tyranny and ridicule, or raised by unenlightened, selfish parents and has bad examples all around him, well, that child will grow up to be a thorn in every one's foot.
I have seen it myself on totally anarchist islands and eco villages. Their parents teach children right from the beginning of their lives, how to love and respect one another. Nobody want to escape from a sound healthy and happy family and the world is my family, no matter if a group accept me or not. Each are basically good individuals, just like the way imaginable God ought to create equality for everyone.
... so we need to first abolish government in order to finally have happy couples, happy kids and happy families?
Better change human nature before you abolish government, and get rid of the whole concept of strong arm people wishing to control others, either for their personal gain or because they, and only they, understand right and wrong.
The way I see it, KLH and Wilderness, all we need is someone with the power and guts to stand against what is here now. That's why my writings are almost all about the "son of Man" with an equal "Help Meet" as his co-president taking over the government. That alone will be enough to change government and in a short period of time.
I get that. You want your own government, one that you think will always do the right thing - according to you. And you believe that no one will ever step up to control it.
History says otherwise, pure and simple.
It would not be my government, it would be what the Constitution demands.
There is no "his-story" of that form of governing except the Native American's "service for survival or get out of the community where you are the only boss unless some other wants nofollow you" type of governing and it isn't a written "his-story", just remembered.
What about the influence of Roman and English history: The success and failure of the Roman Republic and the eventual adoption of the Magna Carta in Britain? What about the thinkers of the enlightenment, such as John Locke?
The founders learned a thing or two from the Indigenous as far as the concept of nations, tribes, states, as well, but the heritage and basis of the Constitution is much, MUCH broader.
Please educate us as to the influence of the Indians as far as the Constitution of the United States!
(here on forums!)
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … ion-democ/ is one location.
No one will ever think to themselves, "Hey I am powerful and smart. Why, I am more powerful and smart than those folks over there. I bet I could trick them into working for me! In time, I could actually make them my slaves! I could tell to bring me their hard earned money and I will redistributed it for the sake of equality amongst them all!"
Laughing with wringing hands.
"So easy! All I have to do is convince them that there is no way to keep living a happy, free life, that doom will surely come, that equality of result, as far as financial earnings, is fair, that not working oneself is good, and working for others is tantamount to earning a halo, (which of course do not exist)!
I'll take away that crazy belief in God and have them do what they like at all times and get rid of all those restrictive rules! I'll tell them life is to be lived for the present time and that since there is no God or heaven, there are no consequences!
They will elect me their president and I will let them get away with anything they like! Over eating, prostitution, weed and pharmaceutical use for all their ills. And then, they will make me Emperor! I will own the entire population. I will be a good emperor, knowing best what their children should be learning in school. And it won't be all those boring facts. And it won't be math, because heaven's forbid they get smarter than myself! and it won't be reading or writing, either ...
What to do about the brilliant crafty ones that enter the world?
That was the destiny of human/woman kind from the foundation of civilization.
I give my reasoning, if you don't have a reason for your reply you should keep quiet is how I see it. To say "I disagree" without any explanation is a judgment, how little do most people know and we are told not to judge without giving a reason.
I can disagree without giving a reason all I want.
In any world, time and place, you have the gullible, the unenlightened, the ignorant, the desperate, the impoverished, the mentally ill, the psychologically unsound and the easily (mis)lead. etc.
The follower list is probably long.
And then there are those who are: ruthless, idealistic to the point of stupidity, greedy, selfish, power-crazed,
power-loving and power-hungry. etc.
The leader list is probably the same length.
Something that isn't even implied in the Constitution any place, including SCOTUS' justices.
Yes, it is bad karma for those who do it. There is supposed to a revolving door of people who want to serve their country in government ... on a short term basis. Except the president. He should be allowed to stay in office as long as the people want him. If he is allowed to serve as president for as long as he remains popular, he will care more deeply about the outcome of his decisions, as he knows his good reputation will be recorded in history.
Karma is neither bad or good, it is the process of experiencing both sides of every potential situation human, woman and man can experience. That is the design of existence for every life-force to experience everything every other life-force has.
Absolutely no leader, president of other, should be allowed to remain in governing positions more that 12 years. Once they have fulfilled their maximum duration someone else is enter and they are to return to being We The People living under the laws they have provided everyone else.
You are suggesting there is to be a governing class but the Constitution says "no classes are to exist" when it stated "to form a more perfect union."
where did you get twelve years?
If the people want someone for twenty four years and the person wants to do it, whats the harm?
I'm taking into consideration senators have a 6 year term I'm allowing for two of the longest terms to be the maximum for any government leader.
Yeah, just arbitrarily off the top of your head.
Thanks for nothing.
That should have been "arbitrarily" of the tops of their heads because that would give a greater number of people the opportunity to fulfill the positions and eliminate the "once in a governing position you have a lifetime of governmental protection and income" above the income of anyone within the nation; the "provide for the general welfare" demands.
where did I say anything about a governing class. I did not. so don't put words here I never ever said.
That is what the government has, once someone is in any governing position they can move around in different positions and remain in government which makes them to become "a governing class" of bribed leaders.
No, it doesn't in a republic where morals are universal believed and followed.
The Roman Republic fell. We have a chance to maintain our republic for posterity for eons of time if we just get on board with a common set of boundaries and rules based on morals and common sense. (Logic common to all.)
Morals come from true spiritual principles which are, in the final analysis, scientific ways to ensure and maintain happiness.
"You are suggesting there is to be a governing class but the Constitution says "no classes are to exist" when it stated "to form a more perfect union."
Again, this class stuff is not what I am suggesting or implying. You really need to read the Federalist Papers where Madison explains the value of allowing the president to remain in office
... as long as the majority want him to.
Had there been a "Forming of a more perfect Union" at the founding of this nation's constitution "The Tyrant Ruling Class" of today could not have been formed because the limits for politicians would not have allowed it.
I know how the Federalist Papers read, Washington's wisdom exceeded his is why they allowed limits to the president and should have to all governing positions.
bad karma is reaping negative consequences.
That isn't bad because to everything did to another life-force in a body will be received by the doing life-force in the same body and received by one life-force in a body will be received by the doing life-force, that eliminates judgments.
Karma is never bad:
"... because whatever one person does to another person, it will come back to them and that eliminates punishments.
I disagree. bad karma is purely and simply negative consequences.
however, there is the aspect of justice in that the person will learn by the return of karma.
For instance, if I kill my happily developing soon to be human baby, I may have to suffer the consequences of being ripped up and sucked out of a warm comfortable womb where I am happily on my way to human life on a beautiful earth full of marvelous potential. I may have to experience the emotional pain of rejection and loss as I feel the physical pain of my head and arms being severed by cold gripping tongs. I may have to feel the misery as I view my body parts being sold, as I hover about the mother I was to be with and love.
I agree, no judgement, but learning: a lesson to behave better and be better.
You were a boy and raped a girl more than once so you enters that girl's body and another life-force enters enters the boy's body and rape you. That process that will happen every time this material civilization returns to the moment of your fist raping of the girl's body.
How can you call it good or evil, it is a "Karma Rapping" and nothing more.
"If a boy rapes a girl more than once, he enters that girl's body and another life-force enters enters the boy's body and rapes him." HUH?
That process that will happen every time this material civilization returns to the moment of your fist raping of the girl's body. HUH?
How can you call it good or evil, it is a "Karma Rapping" and nothing more.
You are making little sense and I can no longer respond. Your comments are confusing. I like logical solutions based on the reality of the human condition.
So have a good day, TheONatureBoy.
Everything happens in cycles that repeats itself the exact same way through eternity and back, every life-force, from what is called god [the phoenix burning itself into ashes allows one life-force to exit just before the ashes become an egg to hash back into the phoenix is metaphor of it] I call "zeroverse" because of the positive and negative together makes everything the whole zero as in numbers.
I'd like to know that, too. He obviously did not follow the trail through eternity, and neither did he do an analysis showing that it is a mathematical necessity.
Personally, the last I heard the best minds in the world have pretty much decided that the long, slow, cold death of everything is what eternity will bring.
"... because whatever one person does to another person, it will come back to them and that eliminates punishments."
What does negative mean?
Bottom line definition: "flowing in a direction from."
What does Positive mean?
Bottom line: "flowing in the direction of."
It flowed to the receiving life-force in one body as a positive and to the same life-force in other body negatively completing the whole specific karmic act. KARMA represents bot the life-force's receiving and giving and not only half. Because few people see the exact act return to them the givers of it often times [I've seen at least one person after doing the act who felt guilty about it] the giver and any favoring giving of the act usually calls it good and those looking on in discuss and the receiver will call it evil.
Your abortion example: In a previous or future life you was or will be the fetus you aborted. If you have never had an abortion in this life [if this is to be your finial incarnation] since you are looking at both the fetus and the mother having it now, you see there's no good nor evil Karma. Now take that mental approach to every act you witness, how does the giver feel; how does the receivers feel and you're yourself from judgments.
"Hancock was one of Boston's leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and he was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence in his position as president of Congress. He returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788."
... from paper 53, Madison was explaining how amazing it was that the members who wrote the Constitution could all agree on issues that faced the convention,
"such as the division of powers between the general government and the States, the large and small States, and between regions of the country.
In closing he points out that it should be pleasing that the framers were able to put aside various differences and agree on a common form of government."
"Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected.
It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment.
It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
https://www.congress.gov/resources/disp … tPapers-37
But because the constitution has never been implemented as soon as most of the establishers of the DoI and Constitution left office the selfish and greedy obtained control because We The People cared nothing about uniting as a nation but only about our individual families which gave them the power to mess over us. That was also eternally predestined otherwise the intended cycle for earth would not be manifested.
That is why the Bible, prophecies proclaiming the end of civilization's "frost and snow season" to end it using the the Europeans to do it. The concept of "separation of church and state" prohibited human-en-mass from being able to understand that.
by Jimbo'daNimbo 4 years ago
We have two major political parties that would seem to stop at nothing to get or keep power. This was highlighted to me when my son and I went to see The Campaign. Who do you feel is the least scrupulous? Please try and be non-partisan here(joke of the day).
by Sharlee 15 months ago
I have little to say about Biden's speech to the Nation, other than it was a typical political speech. Filled to the brim with half-truths, and fluffy BS plans that will not make it to see the light of day. . He made an effort to point out what he felt were accomplishments that he seems to feel he...
by Credence2 6 months ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
by Credence2 18 months ago
Yes, it is a Salon article, but it reflects my opinion 100 percent. At this juncture, the Republicans and the Right are to get NOTHING. No peace in our time.https://www.salon.com/2021/01/22/mcconn … ull-swing/1. Barack Obama had hardly taken his oath of office on January 20th 2009, before...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|