"Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" - Page 4

Kate, I don't really have anything against you. I don't "hate" you and sometimes I think you catch too much hell but are you fucking retarded?

Can the rest of the world please send the Black Helicopters to purge America. We promise to do a better job then our idea to just send poor people there.

Even among those cool with large government I don't think there is an issue with pushing for better efficiency and effectiveness. That's hardly unique to small government advocates.

And let's be honest here; more often than not those talking about smaller government simply mean getting rid of shit that doesn't benefit them personally. You may not mean it that way, but the reality is more often than not that's what people are talking about when they mention small government and/or state's rights.

You'd be surprised at the number of crazies who think that consumption tax idea is the ultimate solution to this country's tax woes. Ridiculous.

Jesus Christ the Politics forum has become a depressing place to visit lately.

I love y'all really, but sometimes you make me want to reach through the screen and shake the shit out of ya.

I know it's pie in the sky to impliment it. I just tend to think that Jefferson was right about redisigning a goverment to fit the needs and the times if it becomes necessary. I think that our modern 300 million strong population is something that our government as structured is ill equipted to serve well.

So, in a perfect world, I'd eliminate the senate to start. Again, pie in the sky, but I think it would do a good deal to get progress moving. Two Senators for Vermont, and Two from California is not a logical ratio. And I love Bernie Sanders as much as Ben and Jerry's.

That's actually sort of what I was trying to say. But it seems to me, if we're just talking about government power, "big government" is a sloppy, inaccurate term, and it's bled over into these other definitions. "Strong government" might be better. "Government reach", maybe. But I think it's absolutely the case that the phrase "big government" has caused people to turn against benign or even necessary functions, because they've conflated power with size with inefficiency. They're three separate things. And the mere, physical size of the government is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

Bigger government in the sense that I'm talking about is more controllable because you personally have more say in the process. The trade-off, of course, is that you have more people with the same amount of say, so it becomes a bit more convoluted to do anything. Kind of a catch-22, and like I say, a true Athenian-style democracy would be a nightmare to administrate; I'm not advocating this as an inherently good thing. But it's crucial to remember that this is the cost of representative democracy: having lots of people with a say in the process. I think this is something a lot of people have unfairly painted as "inefficiency" and "bloat" or "bureaucracy". Those things exist, and there's a balance to be struck, but having something pass through several committees or whatever shouldn't be automatically sneered at.

The level of power thing has already been touched on. Someone's going to grab power, and I'd rather as much of it as possible be in the hands of the body that's answerable to the people, i.e. the democratically elected government.

Whichever we're talking about--power, size, or efficiency--agitating generically for "smaller government" makes no sense. There's always specific arguments to be made, but "smaller government" is not a positive end in and of itself any more than "bigger government" is.

I've gotta know who is peddling this FairTax[tm] idea because whoever it is wants our economy to collapse completely. Why don't we just tax breathing, it'll be quicker.

Thank you for answering my question.

I wonder if these people like Ayn Rand?

The people ultimately get the government they deserve.

Personally, I blame the founding fathers for this shit. And I eagerly await the installation of a eunuch philosopher king wielding the mandate of heaven to rule our hearts. I'm sick of all this bitching and moaning.

Bancroft, I do understand the arguments for each state getting two senators, I just happen to think the drawbacks outweigh the supposed benefits brought about by giving every state an equal number of members in a bicameral legislative branch

So, to answer your question: Not retarded (If I were, would I know how to use the word bicameral in a sentence?)

The lack of real civics knowledge in here astounds me.

What we've got works pretty damn well. It has for over 250 years. If you don't like it, move to another state and vote Democratic then.

The idea that our bicameral legislature should be scrapped because you don't like the politics of one body is completely asinine to me.

Go talk about something else that you can have valid arguments for.

Um, I'd argue that our government has ceased to work well.

And plenty of well educated people (even people educated in civics!) would agree with me. Ask Matt Taiebe. He's even more pessimistic than I am.

The majority of the people who bitch about the Senate (including you I'm sure) wouldn't be bitching about small states and their legislators if they were holding up some crazy conservative bill. I guarantee it.


You take away the Senate and small states would be utterly helpless in passing legislation that benefits them.

In that case I'd be less inclined to bitch... but the fact of the matter is that's never going to happen. Have you seen who is in the Senate?

Everything the senate would ever hold up that I'd agree with holding up is something the house would have stopped even earlier. The house more accurately reflects the politics of the nation, which is more progressive than many would have you believe. If you left it up to NYC and California, I bet the small states would get some stuff.


I understand the argument for the Senate's existance, I just don't think it makes snese the way it's now structured. Anyway, I've stated my position. Agree with it or not, I'm moving on.

Muharulz, you do realize the founding documents (you are a constitutionalist or something, right) were pretty explicit about the Senate being chosen by State legislators? We didn't come to our current lunatic 'Power to the Millionaire Rednecks' Senatorial system until William Randolph Hearst, among other cocksuckers, pushed through the 17th amendment. I realize that there were problems with the legislative election of senators, and that there were probably some pretty good ideas for direct election of Senators, but the fact is this country was founded as a Republic, not as America Idol. More democracy is not always the answer. Now we're stuck with 'tyranny of the minority.' 60 votes to do anything worth doing, and you have to suck the rural dick to get it done. Never mind the fact that most Americans live in cities, or on the coasts, and that most rural Americans have nothing to do with farming, which is dominated by a few massive agribusiness conglomerations. The heartland is where real 'American values' lie.

As for the 'astonishing success' of America over the last couple of centuries: indeed, I am known to engage in patriotic civic pride in my country's unique historical achievements from time to time (like the eradication of the Injun and our crucial role in the global slave economy!), and in fact I hold great esteem for the country's founders, Madison and Adams in particular. (I'm also a big fan of Alexander Hamilton, as his internal contradictions speak loudly to the underlying schizophrenic character of America in a more contemporaneously accurate than even Jefferson.) None of this excuses a rational perspective on history, however, and the fact is, America has seen a meteoric rise from outpost colony to global power, and the gears of history are grinding in such a way that we will probably see a meteoric collapse. Liberty is great and all, but we didn't invent the idea, and we don't own it. We marketed it really well and globalized our economic system more than anything. 250 years, it must be said, really aint shit in comparison to some of the other global empires this planet has seen.

Thanks for making that point Zhukov. I didn't only because I assumed that everyone who disagreed with me already knew the facts of the matter on the senates history. Thanks for giving a refresher course for those who need a brush up. Maybe now they'll see that eliminating it entirely isn't so nutty

Absolutely. That point is kinda moot to mine though. What good will a unicameral legislature do?

I agree with you completely. The Founders were totally adamant against direct democracy. That said, I think the House being the only house of Congress in existence would be far more directly democratic than both the House and the Senate.

Go read the Virginia and New Jersey plans and you can see the arguments as to why Utah and California should have the same number of senators.

Call me crazy, but that's the right way to go about it.

America should be for all citizens, not just those on the coasts. A vote from an Iowan senator should be just as valuable as one from New York.

The idea that a population proportionate house of Congress should be the only house to exist is crazy. Both houses of Congress are checks onto themselves.

Pot meet kettle. It's incredibly nutty.

LOL. What can I say, I stand by my opinions. That's gotta count for something

I don't believe in the Ignore function and have never put anyone on Ignore but I'm starting to think it isn't that bad of an idea.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, Muharulz, I'm not saying 'abolish the Senate!' I do think, though, that some of the outcomes from the 17th Amendment have sped up the country's path to dissolution. Of course rural states deserve an equivalent vote in the Senate (we are a union, after all, and tyranny of the majority - even the awesome coastal majority - is just as bad as tyranny of the minority); but I think there was a really, really, really good reasons the founders wanted the persons wielding that disproportionate vote to be chosen by the State legislature, and not by popular decree as in the House. Rich assholes get elected to the Senate by promising their constituents everything, and since they're representing the whole state, and not just a district, they have to promise everything to everyone. End result? Financial insolvency and political deadlock. I don't think it's a partisan issue, either, because you get crooks like Chris Dodd and Max Baucus who are in the pocket of moneyed interests who are just as bad as their reprehensibleness Republican dopplegangers. The system was amended by people in power to give people in power more power, and it's gonna destroy the country.

Well guys, I've been a member of these forums for like 6 years now, and I've never used the ignore function. I don't even know how. But after reading the past three pages and completely skipping everything Princess Kate and bennythejew have said I sure as hell am about to figure it out.

For the curious, the sellers of the merch are now discontinuing sales: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/21/...ss-pray-obama/

Expect this to now be held up as an example of the Obama admin suspending the Constitution.

That or "The Liberal Media Strikes Again!"

In all seriousness, I'm kind of surprised they didn't just say, "Dudes, we only referenced verse 8. We didn't include verse 9 nor intend to include it."

Somebody already referenced that if you take the verse in its' complete context, it actually turns back around and is supportive of Obama, albeit in a bass-ackwards way.

Someone made a similar comment to this on Pandagon and I have to agree: it's also weirdly passive-aggressive in that it's pretty much baiting people to have to go and look it up, where presumably they'd see the other bits surrounding it and be like "MWOOOHOHOHOHO, CHRISTIAN RIGHT YRSOCLEVER".

It's extremely thinly coded, especially considering the "Pray For" language (which they've managed to turn into an insult over the years in the form of "I'll pray for you", etc.), which works perfectly in reflecting immediate condescension while giving them enough of a high horse/an out to say "We're just being benevolent here, it's not a threat, etc."

It's kind of like how dopey couples still dedicate that R.E.M. song to each other at weddings and shit because it has the line "This one goes out to the one I love.."

Doesn't that belong in the Republican Party going forward thread?

Haha, maaaaybe.

Absolutely stupid and insensitive thing to do, especially with the president's race and the history of lynchings. Given the anonymous nature and location of this one, it seems a little more nefarious. But burning or hanging effigies of political leaders is something of a tradition, isn't it?

Obama fans need to man up. Death Threats are part of the job of being President. Clinton had a nut fire an automatic weapon at the white house in the 90's. I also remember a story of some guy crashing a small plane or hang glider into the white house lawn during his tenoir.

However...

The problem with Obama getting clipped by some nut, versus another president like say Clinton or Bush, are the ramifications that it would do for race relations in this country.

Agreed. Whether people like it or not, the stakes are higher because of what Obama symbolizes due to his race and the history of US race relations.