Perch

[dmarc117]

Perch in 2012!!

 

He pwnd u.

 

 

no sh1t!! this is like watching a bruce lee movie. perch crushing all attackers!!

Edited May 12, 2009 by dmarc117

[TimC]

no sh1t!! this is like watching a bruce lee movie. perch crushing all attackers!!

 

Perch, Chuck Norris and Tedy Bruschi are begging for mercy.

[bushwacked]

You're being such a slow that you've proven perch's point without even realizing it. Like Madison said, "he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

 

It doesn't matter to whom the reference was intended - Madison CLEARLY saw the constitution in contravention to spending "on objects of benevolence".

 

You can't be f'n serious. In the one instance he was specifically referring to non-USA citizens and that context doesn't matter?

 

Hello? Hellooooooo?

Edited May 12, 2009 by bushwacked

[bpwallace49]

Perch, you throw out some googled Jefferson quotes on one hand, and then praise him to the heavens for other quotes.

 

The point is that politicians (and your basis for most of these issues) flip flop constantly and refuse to objectively examine any situation that eliminates any personal bias.

[Azazello1313]

the founding fathers believed first and foremost in the principle of liberty, as espoused by people like john stuart mill and john locke. the great ideas of the american revolution and constitution were those of classical liberalism.

[bpwallace49]

the founding fathers believed first and foremost in the principle of liberty, as espoused by people like john stuart mill and john locke. the great ideas of the american revolution and constitution were those of classical liberalism.

 

You DO realise that classical liberalism back then stated that only wealthy white landowners had the "right" to vote, most were opposed to the idea of women's sufferage, quite a few of the founding fathers were slave owners, and NONE OF THEM really had a problem with relocating and eventually destroying native americans?

 

Kinda gets away from the noble inherent rights of every human that Locke espoused huh?

[westvirginia]

Yes, up to a point. Total laissez-faire leads to wealth concentration, which is just as dangerous as wealth redistribution. I point you to world history to back up this point.

 

 

You think you get nothing back? You really think the government confiscates your money with the sole intention of giving it to some welfare ho to spend on bling?

 

That makes no sense. Concentrating all the wealth in few hands can NOT happen by definition (Adam Smith's). If it did, then there are no markets for finished goods and the whole economy crumbles down on itself. Sure the top 5% will have all the wealth in your example, but what is there to buy? Who will create new technologies if there is no incentive in it? Take a look at the Soviets for your economic outcome.

 

I'm not saying all my tax money is wasted, but that which goes to the welfare ho is.

[Azazello1313]

You DO realise that classical liberalism back then stated that only wealthy white landowners had the "right" to vote, most were opposed to the idea of women's sufferage, quite a few of the founding fathers were slave owners, and NONE OF THEM really had a problem with relocating and eventually destroying native americans?

 

Kinda gets away from the noble inherent rights of every human that Locke espoused huh?

 

that's not at all what classical liberalism espoused, the things you mention are things those in power at the time were unwilling to give up in the name of those ideals.

 

edit to add: you'll notice I said "the GREAT ideas of the revolution and constitution" were those of classical liberalism. I didn't say they pooped gold eggs or that everything they said or did was wonderfully perfect. they were as weak and self-interested as anyone else, but they hit upon what is, in my opinion, the greatest collection of ideas about government and society history has yet come up with.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Azazello1313

[westvirginia]

You can't be f'n serious. In the one instance he was specifically referring to non-USA citizens and that context doesn't matter?

 

Hello? Hellooooooo?

 

I know this is hard for you to understand, as everything is situational to you and you're willing to excuse whatever given the right circumstances, but some people do actually live their lives and form their belief systems on principles. The example didn't and doesn't matter. The PRINCIPLE is that there is nothing in the constitution granting the state to rob from Peter to pay Paul, no matter how noble Paul's cause might be.

[Ursa Majoris]

That makes no sense. Concentrating all the wealth in few hands can NOT happen by definition (Adam Smith's). If it did, then there are no markets for finished goods and the whole economy crumbles down on itself. Sure the top 5% will have all the wealth in your example, but what is there to buy? Who will create new technologies if there is no incentive in it? Take a look at the Soviets for your economic outcome.

 

I'm not saying all my tax money is wasted, but that which goes to the welfare ho is.

Wealth concentration can and does happen to the point of revolution - it doesn't need to get to the point of total concentration.

 

It's a lesson that history has demonstrated over and over and continues to do so. It's ironic that you mention the Soviets, a classic example of a revolution wrought by wealth concentration and hopelessness.

 

The amount of money given to your welfare ho is statistically so tiny that it wouldn't make a cent of difference in your tax.

[bushwacked]

I know this is hard for you to understand, as everything is situational to you and you're willing to excuse whatever given the right circumstances, but some people do actually live their lives and form their belief systems on principles. The example didn't and doesn't matter. The PRINCIPLE is that there is nothing in the constitution granting the state to rob from Peter to pay Paul, no matter how noble Paul's cause might be.

 

Selective rationalization is a wonderful thing.

[westvirginia]

Wealth concentration can and does happen to the point of revolution - it doesn't need to get to the point of total concentration.

 

It's a lesson that history has demonstrated over and over and continues to do so. It's ironic that you mention the Soviets, a classic example of a revolution wrought by wealth concentration and hopelessness.

 

The amount of money given to your welfare ho is statistically so tiny that it wouldn't make a cent of difference in your tax.

 

And the Romanovs were royalty, could do no wrong. Equal protection under the law, and the inability to force another to your wishes completely undercuts your argument.

 

And it's not just the welfare ho that bothers me, probably 99% of what fedgov does bothers me. But you know that.

[Perchoutofwater]

Jefferson (just like most quotes from politicians) has MANY contradictions between his words and his actions. It is always easy to "cherry pick" quotes that happen to support your current stance.

 

There is no doubt that there may be some variation or degrees, but the founding fathers based on all writings of the time wanted a weak federal government and were for states rights. Anyone that is willing to argue otherwise is misinformed or deliberately misleading.

 

The Patriot Act is ripe for abuse, and has already violated the constitutionally protected rights on American citizens. We have already started sliding down that slippery slope by the politics of fear and knee-jerk legislation following 9-11. (failing to learn from the same mistakes FDR made by establishing the relocation camps for Japanese Americans in WWII).

 

Like I said previously I disagree with a good deal of the Patriot Act. I think by in large it was passed on fear, and I will readily admit at the time it passed I thought it had more good than bad. I definitely disagree with infringing on the rights of any US citizen. I honestly don't have a problem where illegal aliens or guest workers are concerned, particularly when they come from regions known to harbor terrorist. I probably have not spoken out as loud as I should have against the infringement of citizens rights, but frankly the Patriot Act has very little affect on me personally, where as the current spending will have a great affect on me, as will cheating bondholders out of what they are do, as 90% of the work I do is funded by the sale of bonds. If it is harder to get bonds, or if they are more expensive that affects me. I can clearly see how that affects me, and want to point out to others the affect that these policies will have on people. If you want to have a debate about the Patriot Act, let's talk about it. I think you will probably find I will agree with you on more than I disagree with you on.

 

Speaking as someone that has children, I do not agree with having different educational standards for different states. How on earth would that work for standardized testing for higher education, or even simple accrediation methology for college ratings? I get the impression that you want to abolish the federal govt entirely, except for the military. That kind of independent state-ism didnt work well at the beginning of our nation (hell we even fought a civil war over it!!) and I have severe doubts it would work in the new economies of globalization. I cannot think of how de-evolving all our laws to throw it back to state decree would work. I would love to hear how you think it WOULD work . . seriously.

 

First off, ask any teacher what they think of standardized testing. Most will tell you it sucks, that student don't learn the subject matter and critical thinking, they learn the test. Bush passed one of the most sweeping education reforms since desegregation in "No Child Left Behind". That was all about standardized testing. Ask any teacher what they think of that. Does one size fits all work? Are the needs along the Canadian border the same as the needs along the Mexican border, where over half the classes are ESL? Regardless of what anyone says all men are not created equally. I'll never dunk a basketball, are run a four minute mile. I'm just not that athletic. That doesn't mean I'm crippled either. Along the same lines some people are not college material, they just aren't that intelligent. This doesn't mean they are retarded, it just means they are more likely to push brooms instead of pencils. We need to offer trade schools. But trade schools in one region will be different than trade schools in another, based on the natural resources and industry in that region. Also, some areas for whatever reason seem to have a higher concentration of people with mental handicaps. Based on ones sized fits all, you can only have a certain percentage of students in special education, so in districts that have and abnormally high concentration of students with mental disabilities, you have kids with disabilities being forced to mainstream. Well the teachers have to teach to the lowest common denominator, so the more intelligent students aren't learning all they can, and often become behavior problems because they are bored. I have no doubt that education could be handled much better on a local level. Colleges can have entrance exams, SAT's and ACTs to determine who gets in. "State-ism" did work but we aren't going to get into argument about the causes of the civil war here, we can save that for another thread."

 

Perch, you seem to love bashing Obama for well . . . everything, while ignoring or waxing nostalgic about and republicans in recent history. Your discourse on most of these subjects has been rational, and well-thought out. Why cant you apply that critical thought to the obvious and glaring missteps by BOTH political parties? You slam Obama for a campaign contribution, yet gloss over the Bush family ties with the Saudi royal family.

 

I'd love to see you point out where I've been waxing nostalgic about republicans in recent history. You haven't been here long (unless you are an alias), but I didn't like McCain at all. I've said Bush was a huge disappointment. The last Republican I really liked was Reagan, and he had his flaws too. I do think that on a whole, republicans are the lessor of two evils, if you are for smaller government, states rights and personal liberty. That doesn't mean I like them. I am slamming Obama for rewarding those that contributed to his campaign at the expense of those who have a legal claim, and at the tax payers expense. We can also talk about Obama's ties to Ayers, a known domestic terrorist, his ties Rezko, as well has his ties to a group that has a serious fraud problem that he wants to reward for their help by allowing them to be a part of the census. I don't talk about Bush's ties to the Saudi royal family, because Bush is not in power, Obama is. Talking about it only deflects from the current situation, which does nobody any good, unless you are a moral relativist.

 

Perch, are you anti-illegal immigration like the rest of the republican platform? If so, have you ever OR used a subcontrator, that has used illegal immigrants? Do you perform full social security card backround checks on ALL employees?

 

I am very much against illegal immigration. Living in a border state and seeing the stress illegals put on our medical and educational systems not to mention that added burden they put on law enforcement, makes most people against illegal immigration. Let's remember it is we are talking about illegal immigration. I don't have a problem with legal immigration or guest worker programs. I really don't know that we need any new legislation, I think we just need to enforce the legislation that we do have.

 

To the best of my knowledge we have only had one illegal work for us. He had very good counterfeit documentation. This was in the early 80's. As soon as we knew he was illegal we reported him to INS. We run back ground checks on all of our employees. We make trade contractors sign an affidavit that they have run background checks on all of their employees and do not have any illegals working for them. On school projects we finger print all workers that will be on the job site and run a background check on everyone. We do not do back ground checks on trade contractors employees on non-school projects unless the owner specifically asks for it, because it would be cost prohibitive, and most clients do not want to absorb that cost, but we do have the trade contractors sign an affidavit. Our men are instructed to notify us if they believe there is an illegal working for a trade contractor, and if there is someone questionable we will ask the trade contractor to provide a copy of his background check on that specific individual. We strictly follow all immigration laws, and in most cases go a step further.

[driveby]

First off, ask any teacher what they think of standardized testing. Most will tell you it sucks, that student don't learn the subject matter and critical thinking, they learn the test.

 

Most teachers don't have a problem with the testing, they have a problem with unrealistic expectations and using the results of the testing to punish good teachers. Among other things.

[bpwallace49]

Perch I agree with most of your views, However you are being extremely selective in some of your principles and what you go to bat for.

 

I think we will agree more than we disagree on items. The methodology and proof seems to be different. I applaud you for your committment to not hiring illegals, as many in your field do not share your principled views. I am then confused as to why you arent more outspoken on the Patriot Act, but you say you arent "because it doesnt affect you". You dont seem (though an online message board) to be a guy that checks his principles at the door . . . I hope that isnt the case here.

 

I am not an alias (but is sure is funny that people think I am. I have played FF with Taz for years and I NEVER change my handle, no matter what the site. I was on fanball since 2000 . . but I digress . . ) I WISH I was around longer (during the Bush years) so I would have had a better basis before wading in with the sharks on this site. All too often I have found people that do not use a common sense denominator when making a decision on a particular issue, but then just blindly follows the party line . . . WHATEVER party that may be.

 

Being a guy with a political science and a history degree . . i would LOVE to discuss some of the other issues with you so we can analyze the RESULTS of historical decisions, good and bad, and how they have impacted on the steaming pile of crap we have ended up with today. . . . but that is for another thread.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch I agree with most of your views, However you are being extremely selective in some of your principles and what you go to bat for.

 

I think we will agree more than we disagree on items. The methodology and proof seems to be different. I applaud you for your committment to not hiring illegals, as many in your field do not share your principled views. I am then confused as to why you arent more outspoken on the Patriot Act, but you say you arent "because it doesnt affect you". You dont seem (though an online message board) to be a guy that checks his principles at the door . . . I hope that isnt the case here.

 

I do not like the idea of any American's rights being infringed upon. I do not believe foreigners have the same rights and protections. I will admit I feel some rights are more important than others, and I think you will find most everyone does if they are being honest. I will admit at the time it was forced down our throats I thought the Patriot Act was passed I didn't have a whole bunch of qualms about it. There were parts of it I definitely didn't like but overall I thought it did more good than harm. I think this was a fairly common mistake made in the wake of 9-11 as evidenced by the largely bipartisan support of the act, as it passed the House 357 to 66 and it passed the senate 98-1. Much like the recent stimulus bill, it was thrust upon us without much time for the public to really take exception to it or debate it. In retrospect I wish I had paid more attention. Still parts of the Patriot Act have been undone, the rest of it could be if congress so chose. There is no long term damage as a result of the Patriot Act. With the out of control spending, the blatant disregard for the law and bond holders claims, the nationalization of industries, and the possible nationalization of medical care, we are going to be saddled with this debt. We are going to have to live with the consequences. We are going to have to live with bonds being more expensive for fear the government will not honor them. Unlike the Patriot Act where we revoke it, and we are back to the way thins were, we can't vote ourselves out of paying for more debt than all previous presidents combined. We can't vote our way into having investors trust the government to not interfere. Honestly if the government wanted to listen to my phone conversations it wouldn't have a great impact on my day to day life. What is happening right now is going to affect us all for a long time. So I will be more vocal about it than about something that for the most part has been repealed.

[Ursa Majoris]

I do not like the idea of any American's rights being infringed upon. I do not believe foreigners have the same rights and protections.

Since you love to quote Madison, here is Madison's take on the protection offered by the Constitution to aliens and non-citizens:

 

It turns out, though, that at least one pretty significant Framer -- that would be James Madison -- took the opposite view. Here's Madison, from his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, which criticized the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798:

 

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

 

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

 

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

 

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

 

 

The Supreme Court has endorsed Madison's view at least since Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as to the criminal procedure provisions, and in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) (also unanimously) as to the Equal Protection Clause racial equality principle. Aliens might be deportable for their speech (see here for more on that question), but they can't be otherwise punished for it, nor can they be criminally prosecuted in the civil justice system without the normal constitutional protections. (The question of when military justice may be applied to them is a separate and complicated issue, and one that may potentially relate to citizens as well as aliens.)

 

In other words, you're wrong according to the guy you quote in your support most often.

[tazinib1]

You haven't been here long (unless you are an alias), but I didn't like McCain at all.

 

BPWallace is not an alias. I can vouch for Brian.

[TimC]

BPWallace is not an alias. I can vouch for Brian.

 

But who vouches for you?

[Big John]

But who vouches for you?

John Tuvey

[Perchoutofwater]

Since you love to quote Madison, here is Madison's take on the protection offered by the Constitution to aliens and non-citizens:

 

 

 

In other words, you're wrong according to the guy you quote in your support most often.

 

Dude, it says as long as they conform to the constitution. Do ILLEGAL aliens conform when they break our laws? Like the supreme court decision, I want them deported. I also believe that enemies of the state should be treated in a different manner than illegal aliens. I have never said I agree with Madison or the founding fathers on everything, but I would dare say that I agree with them on considerably more than you, Obama, and the Democrat held congress.

[AtomicCEO]

Dude, it says as long as they conform to the constitution. Do ILLEGAL aliens conform when they break our laws?

 

I don't remember the section of the constitution that defined the legal ways to enter the country. Can you quote it?

[Ursa Majoris]

Dude, it says as long as they conform to the constitution. Do ILLEGAL aliens conform when they break our laws? Like the supreme court decision, I want them deported. I also believe that enemies of the state should be treated in a different manner than illegal aliens. I have never said I agree with Madison or the founding fathers on everything, but I would dare say that I agree with them on considerably more than you, Obama, and the Democrat held congress.

You specifically said "foreigners". Legal aliens in the US are foreigners but should be (and are) entitled to the full protection of the Constitution.

 

As for "enemies of the state", how are they defined if not by the courts? Should the government arbitrarily declare them? Careful with this one Perch, lest you find Obama thinks you an enemy of the state.........

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't remember the section of the constitution that defined the legal ways to enter the country. Can you quote it?

 

 

You specifically said "foreigners". Legal aliens in the US are foreigners but should be (and are) entitled to the full protection of the Constitution.

 

As for "enemies of the state", how are they defined if not by the courts? Should the government arbitrarily declare them? Careful with this one Perch, lest you find Obama thinks you an enemy of the state.........

 

Both of you are belaboring a single point in how we are getting away from what was originally intended by our founding fathers, but over looking much larger and long lasting departures that will have much graver consequences. I tell you what I'll concede to this point if you will just agree to deport all illegal aliens and stop paying for their education and medical care. Now do you care to respond to the rest or just continue to deflect?

[bushwacked]

Both of you are belaboring a single point in how we are getting away from what was originally intended by our founding fathers,

 

It's pretty apparent that what you think was originally intended is based on selective interpretation and conveniently ignoring every factor that contradicts a narrow minded philosophy.