Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal neocon's Journal: Quote of the Day 22

Journal by neocon

It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a newspaper, nor like a Priam in armor to offer myself as its champion), that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidatee into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821

Discuss.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quote of the Day More

Quote of the Day

Comments Filter:
  • Lousy fascist Jefferson, look at that right wing spew.

    I'm exhausted, but all I have to say is at the current pace of federal consolidation, irregardless of republican or democratic administrations, we have about sixty years remaining. And that is quite depressing when you think about it.
    • You're an optimist.
      • To put it mildly.

        I hear that Brazil is nice. If you have money.

        • I hear that Brazil is nice. If you have money.

          The sad thing is the US is about the last best hope on this Earth for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Where the power of the government flows from the consent of the governed.

          The question is how do you reverse the Federal consolidation trend of the last 70 years and what functions of government are necessary to keep at a Federal level, what should be devolved to the states, and what functions should be done away with entirely. T
          • I believe seccession is the answer. I suggest that WA *NOT* be the (second) test case, though...

            btw, I agree that "warts and all" that the US is STILL the best place on earth.

            • I believe seccession is the answer. I suggest that WA *NOT* be the (second) test case, though...

              Seccession would only be a sane option if WA got control of most of the ships and subs based here along with the forces based at Ft. Lewis.

              Probably no real danger of WA trying to be the test case though. It's much more likely that somewhere like AK, AZ, MT, or NH will be the next state to try.

              btw, I agree that "warts and all" that the US is STILL the best place on earth.

              One need look no further than the 2

          • I'm a little curious as to how you reconcile your post and your .sig -- I agree completely on the dangers of federal consolidation, yet you end the post with a link to the campaign of a candidate who has called for massive expansion of the federal budget, for huge new federal bureaucracies, and for use of the FCC to silence a television network he's unhappy with.

            How do you figure?

            • He's promoting Dean because he would probably cause the most spectacular loss to GWB =)
              • He's promoting Dean because he would probably cause the most spectacular loss to GWB

                Nope, I actually want Dean to win in November 2004.

                I certainly think he would have a better chance against GWB than say Lieberman. Perhaps Clark might actually have a better chance against GWB than Dean but for a number reasons I hope Clark is not the nominee and would have trouble supporting him.

                • Without responding further, I'd like to point out how interesting it is to me to see you talking about supporting Dean not for what his program is, or for how competent he might or might not be, but because he's `not Bush'.

                  Obviously, you're not going to convince those of us who are quite happy with Mr. Bush to vote for Dean this way, but it doesn't seem to me that you'll convince most Democrats either -- you can't put `notBush' on the ballot, so come November next year, voters are going to vote for who

                  • The question was about who had (or didn't have) the best chance against Bush.

                    I don't support Lieberman for policy reasons, and would have trouble supporting Clark for a combination of policy and stylistic reasons.

                    Indeed the only other canidate who's policies I like much is Edwards (and to a lesser extent Clark and Kerry, but I have stylistic problems with both of them).

                    To be fair, a good number of people seem to have their minds fairly well made up as to wether or not they will support Bush in November 2

                    • Indeed I won't. :-)

                      However, if the 2002 Senatorial elections [slashdot.org] (the first time in presidential history that the President's party gained seats in the Senate in a midterm election, and only the fourth time in presidential history that the President's party gained seats in the house) are any guide, however they vote in the primaries, a lot of Democrats will be voting for Bush come November.

                      If the Democrats insist on campaigning as `notBush', or running against the War on Terror, this outcome will be all

                    • The "War on Terror" is a fools errand much like the "War on Drugs". Indeed it has mostly turned into an excuse to shovel taxpayer money to certain corporations, settle old scores that have little to do with international terrorism, and continue the erosion of civil liberties and consolidation of Federal power we saw during the "War on Drugs".

                      As to the 2002 Congressional elections, the Democratic Congressional and Senate campaign committees ran a hugely inept campaign which was responsible for losing at lea

                    • Well, to put it politely, very few of us here in New York feel that the War on Terror is a `fool's errand'. Likewise, if you see the Democrat's natural constituency as being those Americans who see rolling up huge parts of al Qaeda's network around the globe, eliminating two of the world's largest state sponsors of terror, and getting Iraq's WMD programs off the table, all while liberating millions of people from cruel and murderous tyranny and preventing a repeat of the murderous attacks of 9/11 for two

            • I'm a little curious as to how you reconcile your post and your .sig -- I agree completely on the dangers of federal consolidation, yet you end the post with a link to the campaign of a candidate who has called for massive expansion of the federal budget, for huge new federal bureaucracies, and for use of the FCC to silence a television network he's unhappy with.

              How do you figure?

              It's complicated, but for a number of reasons I find myself throwing my lot in more with the Democrats than the Republicans.

              Y

              • On the contrary, it is exactly because I am concerned with what politicians do, rather than what they say, that I am a Republican. Likewise, I find your charges about Bush not to hold water -- far from taking action which would increase the budget in the long term, he has slashed taxes for all levels of society, a move which runs a short term deficit in order to reign in federal spending (the growth of which he has slowed), and help the economy out of a recession which started in 2000 -- all while fightin

                • Have you seen the federal defecit? Bush might not be increasing taxation but he's spending like there's no tomorrow. He inherited a surplus and now has a deficit around $7 trillion, growing at a rate in excess of $500 billion a year.

                  Just how is mortgaging the farm sound financial management? Somebody's going to have to pay for all this, but I bet it won't be Bush, it'll be the next guy. Crippling future generations with debt just so you can say you cut taxes by a few hundred dollars for the average guy (an

                  • Which is well and good except for one big point: projections showing the current deficit continuing only hold if the economy stay down, as these projections were done several months ago, and with the assumption that the economy would continue to decline slowly.

                    Now that the economy is picking up rapidly, projections show the deficit dwindling toward a return to surpluses. In other words, Bush's tax cuts were right on target, running a short term deficit to bring the country out of the recession which b

                    • Uh, the reason why the US economy has picked up is simple - the US government is spending, and it's spending big. All that action in the Gulf and increased military spending in general trickles down but it's not like for every $x spent by the DoD $x will come back in taxes.

                      Bush has been on one-big spending spree, like a shopper out to blow the limit on his VISA card. Saying that all that money spent will come back is hopeful to say the least. It's like that credit-mad shopper saying that running up thousan

                    • Mmm-hmm. So your theory is that a few tens of billions in spending ``created all this growth'', rather than the few trillions in investment capital and spending money put back in the economy by the tax cuts.

                      And likewise, it's your theory that Bill Clinton is to credit for a run of growth which began in 1985, but George Bush is to blame for a recession which began in May of 2000.

                      Okaaaay, there -- you just go on telling yourself these things. We'll see how it works out for ya next November...

                    • First of all, I never said Clinton was wholy responsible for growth or that Dubya was responsible for a recession so, please, don't pretend I did. What I said was that Clinton repaid the deficit (and he did that by not spending wildly as Republicans predicted he would) and that Bush has run one up (mainly because he's spent like crazy, although you seem keen to gloss over the fact).

                      To suggest that the current deficit levels have nothing to do with Bush's extensive spending is hilarious. Got any other good

                    • If we are agreed that Clinton is not to credit for the economic boom which began in 1985, then he cannot take credit for the fact that rising tax revenues caused by that boom, along with spending cuts from the Gingrich congress which he fought tooth and nail (using the veto repeatedly) helped eliminate the deficit.

                      Likewise, if we are agreed that Bush is not to blame for a recession which began in May of 2000, and which his tax cuts have already successfully pulled the economy out of, then he can hardly

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close