Something to think about

[Dr. Shane]

The basis for everything we need for freedom is in the original documents. Especially the repeated warnings of the "EVILS" a government to big and trying to regulate the lives of american citizens.

[Putting on history teacher hat]

I don't see any warnings about government regulation in the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, there was very little to regulate. There was major concerns about the banking system and commerce between states and with other nations. It was the Industrial Age that brought about the need for regulation. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President that create major regulation which was over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The type of regulation we have today was never envisioned by the founders because they did not have the giant EVIL corporations then that we have now.

Both big corporations and big government have the potential to be EVIL. Both, properly regulated, can be very beneficial to society. In fact, in today's world, society needs big government AND big corporations. The error of the right is they think all big government is bad. The error of the left is they think all big corporations are bad. Neither is correct. That is why I am in the middle - a moderate independent.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

The basis for everything we need for freedom is in the original documents. Especially the repeated warnings of the "EVILS" a government to big and trying to regulate the lives of american citizens.

[Putting on history teacher hat]

I don't see any warnings about government regulation in the Constitution.

The constitution itself, and especially the Bill of Rights, is a warning against big government. Its purpose was to protect citizens from government.

From the horse's mouth: "Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution". -- Thomas Jefferson

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.” James Madison

I'd say Madison nailed it. The very thing the Founders wanted to prevent (the nanny state) is what we have today.

[Dr. Shane]

The founders lived in a different time. The only forms of government they had ever known were evil. They didn't have evil corporations like what we saw in the Gilded Age. Government needed to change to adopt to a changing world. Large corporations are beneficial to society only because they are regulated by government. Without government regulations we return to the abused of the Gilded Age. Support to do that is an extremely radical position.

[doug yowell]

The founders lived in a different time. The only forms of government they had ever known were evil. They didn't have evil corporations like what we saw in the Gilded Age. Government needed to change to adopt to a changing world. Large corporations are beneficial to society only because they are regulated by government. Without government regulations we return to the abused of the Gilded Age. Support to do that is an extremely radical position.

Why doesn't everyone who is being abused by those evil corporations simply join the union? Surely unions provide a safe haven from corporate greed without governmental intervention? Then the public could be protected from the shortsightedness of our founding fathers without having to reinvent the purpose of government. Maybe we could institute a constitutional cap on how much a small business was allowed to expand so we could avoid one of them accidentally becoming a large, and therefore, evil corporation. Maybe we could liberate most of the present, large corporation workers in order to save them the weekly humiliation they are presently suffering at the hands of their evil, greedy employers. We could ask them to voluntarily quit and reduce executive profit margins overnight.

[Dr. Shane]

1. Unions are just as evil as big corporations. They are both looking out for their own good. Workers who belong to a union often end up becoming victims of both company and union.

2. I don't think any of the founding fathers should have been expected to have prophetic visions of the future and have had drafted a document that would anticipate the changes that took place during the Industrial Revolution and Gilded Age.

3. Regulations already determine when a small business' growth moves it into another set of regulations.

4. Large corporations, when properly regulated, are good for society. When I speak of "evil corporations" for the most part, I am referring to those that existed during the Gilded Age. Certainly some big corporations today are "evil" like we saw with Enron. However, for the most part, large corporations today do more good for society than harm. But... that is because they are regulated.

[Guest]

Why doesn't everyone who is being abused by those evil corporations simply join the union? Surely unions provide a safe haven from corporate greed without governmental intervention? Then the public could be protected from the shortsightedness of our founding fathers without having to reinvent the purpose of government. Maybe we could institute a constitutional cap on how much a small business was allowed to expand so we could avoid one of them accidentally becoming a large, and therefore, evil corporation. Maybe we could liberate most of the present, large corporation workers in order to save them the weekly humiliation they are presently suffering at the hands of their evil, greedy employers. We could ask them to voluntarily quit and reduce executive profit margins overnight.

Amen Doug. Excellent!

[doug yowell]

1. Unions are just as evil as big corporations. They are both looking out for their own good. Workers who belong to a union often end up becoming victims of both company and union.

2. I don't think any of the founding fathers should have been expected to have prophetic visions of the future and have had drafted a document that would anticipate the changes that took place during the Industrial Revolution and Gilded Age.

3. Regulations already determine when a small business' growth moves it into another set of regulations.

4. Large corporations, when properly regulated, are good for society. When I speak of "evil corporations" for the most part, I am referring to those that existed during the Gilded Age. Certainly some big corporations today are "evil" like we saw with Enron. However, for the most part, large corporations today do more good for society than harm. But... that is because they are regulated.

Yet you voted for a candidate who embraced evil unions while condemning the miniscule number of corporate crooks?? Why? Is that what we are to consider balance?

[Dr. Shane]

When voting we have to look at both candidates and choose the lesser of two evils.

[karl]

When voting we have to look at both candidates and choose the lesser of two evils.

You just underscored what I have been saying all along. Government is not good. It is a necessary evil. It is something that needs to be kept on a very short leash.

Some real statesmen running as candidates would be very much appreciated, but even then, we should not put our trust in them. Chain them down to the strict limitation of powers as outlined in our constitution.

[Guest]

Amen!

[Dr. Shane]

Government is a necessary evil. No doubt. Big corporations are a necessary evil. Federal bureaucracies that regulate evil corporations are a necessary evil.

[doug yowell]

When voting we have to look at both candidates and choose the lesser of two evils.

And the one you voted for is the champion of texpayer funded abortions,normalization of homosexuality, class warfare, union pandering,socialized medicine, and the darling of Hollywood (all issues that SDA's have traditionally opposed). What exactly was he less evil than????

[Dr. Shane]

McCain was a bad man. Now if Sarah Palin had been at the top of the ticket, I would have voted for her. But I would not vote for an unprincipled man like McCain. Obama has principles. I may disagree with some of them but at least he stands for something. He is admirable and McCain is despicable. If Republicans want my vote, they need to put up a man with an honorable character. I will be voting for a Democrat in our local congressional race this year because the Republicans have nominated an ex-con for a candidate.

[Woody]

McCain was a bad man. Now if Sarah Palin had been at the top of the ticket, I would have voted for her. But I would not vote for an unprincipled man like McCain. Obama has principles. I may disagree with some of them but at least he stands for something. He is admirable and McCain is despicable. If Republicans want my vote, they need to put up a man with an honorable character. I will be voting for a Democrat in our local congressional race this year because the Republicans have nominated an ex-con for a candidate.

If things were stated in the reverse and it was Obama that was being trashed ... this post would receive cries to be deleted.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Shane

McCain was a bad man. Now if Sarah Palin had been at the top of the ticket, I would have voted for her. But I would not vote for an unprincipled man like McCain. Obama has principles. I may disagree with some of them but at least he stands for something. He is admirable and McCain is despicable. If Republicans want my vote, they need to put up a man with an honorable character. I will be voting for a Democrat in our local congressional race this year because the Republicans have nominated an ex-con for a candidate.

If things were stated in the reverse and it was Obama that was being trashed ... this post would receive cries to be deleted.

It would be interesting to see Obama labeled despicable,dishonorable, and unprincipled.Not sure why a ex-con should cause a problem when our very own home grown terrorist Bill Ayers was a friend of our principled current president

[Dr. Shane]

If things were stated in the reverse and it was Obama that was being trashed ... this post would receive cries to be deleted.

Try to stay on subject. The above comment has nothing to do with the topic in this thread.

[Dr. Shane]

It would be interesting to see Obama labeled despicable,dishonorable, and unprincipled.

[Guest]

Obama is despicable,dishonorable, and unprincipled. He was just lying through his teeth to the American people both today, and yesterday. Not to mention all the other times. I'll go into more detail when I have more time. I have to get up at 4:00 am now. But it sure beats being unemployed. That was rough.

[Guest]

Obama kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers' living room. Am I to believed they hardly know each other?

Bill Ayers wrote one of the books with obama's name on it, and he's mad because big O screwed him out of some of the money that was promised. I saw Bill say that with my own eyes.

Casual aquaintances?

[bonnie]

People lie about other people every day. I don't find that interesting at all]

That is true.

It seemed odd that there was not any reason given for calling another despicable.You must have some concrete reason for making such a statement

I think you may protest to much about the kool aid. Maybe you just like a different flavor.

There was more than a nodding acquaintance between these two.Pretty easy to check

[Dr. Shane]

Obama kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers' living room.

[doug yowell]

McCain was a bad man. Now if Sarah Palin had been at the top of the ticket, I would have voted for her. But I would not vote for an unprincipled man like McCain. Obama has principles. I may disagree with some of them but at least he stands for something. He is admirable and McCain is despicable. If Republicans want my vote, they need to put up a man with an honorable character. I will be voting for a Democrat in our local congressional race this year because the Republicans have nominated an ex-con for a candidate.

McCain is a bad man??!!?? Despicable? Unprincipled? Compared to a candidate who referred to a racist pastor as one of the most influential people in his life? Who,after voting against partial birth abortion, claimed that discerning the point where an unborn baby had the right to live was "above his paygrade"???? Who commonly tries to demonize the rich "corporate fat cats"? I'm no fan of John McCain but unsubstantiated character assasination is pretty low,Shane!

[Dr. Shane]

Right-wing ideologues call Reverend Wright a racist. Those are talking points that I am not convinced of. (yes I have seen the video).

State Senator Barak Obama voted against a partial-birth abortion ban because it did not have a provision to save the mother's life. That said, I do take issue with Obama's position on abortion. However that is a political disagreement and no reason to assassinate his character.

The comment Obama made about the issue of abortion being above his pay-grade shows Obama supports separation of church and state. That is a good thing.

Many of the corporate fat cats are demons. This latest recession was in no small part caused by such people. I don't believe the majority of CEOs are "demons" but a significant minority are and we need government regulation to control abuses.

Look at both John McCain's congressional and personal record. When I look at that I do not see a man of character that I could support. I see a man of compromise.

[doug yowell]

OK, Shane. I guess we have diametrically opposed values when judging what constitutes truth,character,and reality.

[Woody]

Richard ... in your original post of this thread ... you asked the following question of us:

Quote:

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU

CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A

GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

My answer to that would be:

No. I don't believe that Obama can be trusted to run our health care. The man is a "bad man", "despicable" and "unprincipled".

:)