Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Palin]

It still makes no sense for third parties to try to go immediately for the Presidency when they have 0 seats in Congress and the Senate. Change like this comes from grassroots local areas up to Washington, not from the Presidency down. That's why third party candidates are just asinine right now.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Explain yourself. I think i get what you mean, but you're wording it wrong.

Uh, I don't know how else to say it. I have two reasons for opposing govt. involvement, it fails and it's unconstitutional. The U.S. constitution specifically prohibits the size of the federal govt., thus constitutionalism in the U.S. is the same as believing in small govt. In another country they might contradict, but not here.

[Zosi]

Perot put up a good showing because he had two things that third-party candidates today completely lack. Shitloads of money (he spent over $65m out of pocket) and a media that was willing to pay attention to him. Modern third parties are lucky to have $1m to spend, and are completely ignored by the media, largely due to Perot and Nader and their perceived effects on the 1992 and 2000 elections respectively.

[Kuya]

Uh, I don't know how else to say it. I have two reasons for opposing govt. involvement, it fails and it's unconstitutional. The U.S. constitution specifically prohibits the size of the federal govt., thus constitutionalism in the U.S. is the same as believing in small govt.

You're not being very specific at all. Government involvement fails at what? You have to specify.

Could you point me towards where the constitution says that the government can only do what the constitution demands the government do? There is a difference between certain actions being mandatory and being restricted to certain actions. The phrase small government is highly relative; what you mean to say is that according to constitutionalist views the US government has far too many duties that do not pertain to the Constitution and therefore are illegal or ideologically invalid. Saying that US constitutionalism means small government is a very lazy way to put it, because you continue to leave it highly ambiguous. You must specify that when you refer to small government you are either referring to economic non interventionism, limited duties specific to the government and or a small government in terms of size; you can't use small government as an umbrella term because people may not believe in all of these definitions at the same time, so one can't just assume that it means all three.

So again, what you should be saying to avoid lazy and ambiguous terms is that US constitutionalism postulates that the current form of the government does not fit with constitutionalist views as it is exercising actions that were not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. This may mean that the government needs to be smaller compared to what it is now in terms of duties (or even size), but even if you had the government down to a certain quantity of actions you could still make that pool of action even smaller and therefore you can clearly see the inadequacy of just saying small government; it's highly relative.

[Elvis]

Muslim McCain Fans Confront Intolerance At Rally (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_136203.html

[Beckwin]

Yeah...kinda wrong.

From Wikipedia:


Even after dropping out and re-entering the race, he finished with an 18% popular vote, including a 2nd place finish in Utah.

Original source here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A964958260
He founded the Reform party in '95 and ran on it in '96, where he received 8% of the popular vote. However, the greatest lasting legacy of the Reform party was ex-Governor Ventura's successful campaign in Minnesota, and Perot didn't even support him.

Ok, I was thinking of the popular vote. The legacy thing is that he didn't get those popular votes while being part of the reform party; he was just running as an independent in '92, right?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're not being very specific at all. Government involvement fails at what? You have to specify.

Could you point me towards where the constitution says that the government can only do what the constitution demands the government do? There is a difference between certain actions being mandatory and being restricted to certain actions. The phrase small government is highly relative; what you mean to say is that according to constitutionalist views the US government has far too many duties that do not pertain to the Constitution and therefore are illegal or ideologically invalid. Saying that US constitutionalism means small government is a very lazy way to put it, because you continue to leave it highly ambiguous. You must specify that when you refer to small government you are either referring to economic non interventionism, limited duties specific to the government and or a small government in terms of size; you can't use small government as an umbrella term because people may not believe in all of these definitions at the same time, so one can't just assume that it means all three.

So again, what you should be saying to avoid lazy and ambiguous terms is that US constitutionalism postulates that the current form of the government does not fit with constitutionalist views as it is exercising actions that were not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. This may mean that the government needs to be smaller compared to what it is now in terms of duties (or even size), but even if you had the government down to a certain quantity of actions you could still make that pool of action even smaller and therefore you can clearly see the inadequacy of just saying small government; it's highly relative.

So basically you understood what I was saying. Maybe if this wasn't an internet forum I would have put more effort into it.

And it's amendment 10. Also, both Madison and Jefferson essentially said, congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

[Plow]

Ok, I was thinking of the popular vote. The legacy thing is that he didn't get those popular votes while being part of the reform party; he was just running as an independent in '92, right?

It's pretty complex. He had to run as an independent in most states in 96, and basically he's batshit crazy and wasn't really trying to form a new party but just to get himself to be president.

[Kuya]

So basically you understood what I was saying. Maybe if this wasn't an internet forum I would have put more effort into it.

And it's amendment 10. Also, both Madison and Jefferson essentially said, congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_le.../media/ten.htm

Ah, i see. What exactly are the examples of things you oppose that the federal government currently does and it exceeds its power?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think it's easier to just say everything that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

[Kwijiboe]

Come on Swampy, give them something juicy to attack.

[Kuya]

I think it's easier to just say everything that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

Yea, that's easy, but you should probably specify.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yea, that's easy, but you should probably specify.

Social security. Incoming carbon emissions stuff. Welfare programs.

[Kuya]

Hmm, then it seems we have a problem. Many of those things could be considered a necessity and so complex that the federal government might be needed to ensure fairness in the system. We can't expect the elderly, after they are incapable of working, to just fend for themselves, we can't just allow the environment to degrade without any mindful consideration of future damage, and we certainly can't allow workers who have full responsability in their duties, but due to a poor job market they possess jobs which offer so little security that these people can easily fall into ruin and real poverty.

Of course, you could try and disagree as to whether any of that is necessary, and even if you still contended that the federal government shouldn't be in charge of it, but rather the states, you'd still need to make sure that every state provides these services as the damage done can be quite disastrous if not regulated.

I also do not think that when the constitution was made, heavy environmental contamination due to unregulated industrialization was such a big issue.

[thestalkmore]

http://www.kontraband.com/videos/142...d-Hit-It/#show

[Beckwin]

My problem with "strict" Constitutionalist views is that they defer to the founders to justify their views on unenumerated things and modern issues... but last I checked, we didn't elect the founders for eternity, nor are their personal writings canon to the Constitution. Claiming the Constitution isn't vague or broad in much of it's language is pretty dishonest to begin with, but that dishonestly only compounds when you start referencing outside sources to explain how specific you think it is.

frankly strict constitutionalism strikes me as almost dogmatic...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Hmm, then it seems we have a problem. Many of those things could be considered a necessity and so complex that the federal government might be needed to ensure fairness in the system. We can't expect the elderly, after they are incapable of working, to just fend for themselves, we can't just allow the environment to degrade without any mindful consideration of future damage, and we certainly can't allow workers who have full responsability in their duties, but due to a poor job market they possess jobs which offer so little security that these people can easily fall into ruin and real poverty.

Of course, you could try and disagree as to whether any of that is necessary, and even if you still contended that the federal government shouldn't be in charge of it, but rather the states, you'd still need to make sure that every state provides these services as the damage done can be quite disastrous if not regulated.

I also do not think that when the constitution was made, heavy environmental contamination due to unregulated industrialization was such a big issue.

So complex that the federal government is needed? Humans are humans no matter who they work for.

Elderly could live with their children, or whatever they did in previous generations.

Fox announced that 24 is now carbon neutral or something. McDonalds is building "green" restaurants. All without the govt.

I think poverty stats are misleading because most people don't stay there.

And yes the states could provide all of this and it would be constitutional. Maybe the states would have better results because there's less people involved, but it's still government.

@Beck: Thankfully we have amendments, so it's not dogmatic.

[Beckwin]

haha, and religions are waiting for messiahs to come change everything too.

[Correction]

Let's banish Social Security! It's not in the constitution!

[Rhinox]

Social security. Incoming carbon emissions stuff. Welfare programs.

Do you actually know anyone that on Welfare?