New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

[Braddogg]

Brad, that's why the United States Constitution was drafted in the way that it was, so that it would not "calculate on the lesser springs of human nature" - namely, the springs of altruism, brotherly love, and goodwill.

How so?  And how well has that turned out for us?

Let's see... the best, freeest, most prosperous nation in the history of the earth, so productive and benevolent that it has never been attacked by a foreign military on its own soil

HAH!  Benevolent?  Tell that to the Mexicans in 1846.  Tell that to the residents of Hiroshima in 1948.  Tell that to the Cubans in 1898.  Tell that to the Filipinos from 1899-1913.  Tell that to the Amer-Indians throughout the entirety of American history.  Tell that to every poor fuck rotting in a jail cell because he chose to smoke a plant.  Tell that to hundreds of Iraqis dying every week because of a civil war the UNITED STATES caused!  To make the claim that the United States is or ever has been purely benevolent is beyond delusional.  It's a sick, intentional blindness to history.  It's a sociopathic absence of empathy.

[eques]

You know... the Constitution was being violated and overturned almost before the ink was dry... well, okay, maybe not quite so quickly, but look at the Marbury vs. Madison case in which the opinion of the United States Supreme Court set the precedent for judicial review, which is a power NOT granted to the Judiciary under the Constitution.  It didn't take 20 years for the government to start appropriating power unto itself that it did not have right to, as delineated in its founding document.  And perhaps there is another, earlier example, but that's the earliest that comes to mind without doing any heavy digging.

What power is there that will stop any constitutional government from doing the same in the future?  Tell me, what mechanism might be employed, and by whom, to effectively limit a government from appropriating powers that were not granted to it?

[error]

What power is there that will stop any constitutional government from doing the same in the future?  Tell me, what mechanism might be employed, and by whom, to effectively limit a government from appropriating powers that were not granted to it?

The only thing that is certain to work is for We the People to withdraw our support for it, and should they send around thugs to compel our unwilling support for their perversions of justice and violations of the rights of man, to defend in a reasonable manner against such initiation of force.

[Dreepa]

  Tell that to the residents of Hiroshima in 1948. 

Weren't many left there in '48.. they got fried in '45 

[eques]

What power is there that will stop any constitutional government from doing the same in the future?  Tell me, what mechanism might be employed, and by whom, to effectively limit a government from appropriating powers that were not granted to it?

The only thing that is certain to work is for We the People to withdraw our support for it, and should they send around thugs to compel our unwilling support for their perversions of justice and violations of the rights of man, to defend in a reasonable manner against such initiation of force.

Yeah... let's say we do that.  Is it absolutely necessary for us to re-install new thugs? 

[Objectivist]

Blah blah blahblahblah...... To make the claim that the United States is or ever has been purely benevolent is beyond delusional. ....

True as can be. That's why I said the best ever in history, not PURELY benevolent.

Freak. You're worse than me. 

Objectivist

[Objectivist]

You know... the Constitution was being violated and overturned almost before the ink was dry... well, okay, maybe not quite so quickly, but look at the Marbury vs. Madison case in which the opinion of the United States Supreme Court set the precedent for judicial review, which is a power NOT granted to the Judiciary under the Constitution.  It didn't take 20 years for the government to start appropriating power unto itself that it did not have right to, as delineated in its founding document.  And perhaps there is another, earlier example, but that's the earliest that comes to mind without doing any heavy digging.

What power is there that will stop any constitutional government from doing the same in the future?  Tell me, what mechanism might be employed, and by whom, to effectively limit a government from appropriating powers that were not granted to it?

Philosophy.

I know, its long term.    Better get to work. (Think and act on principle.)

Objectivist

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you ready to wrestle?
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=6117.msg107091#msg107091

[error]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[mvpel]

Brad, did you miss the word "not" in my post, perhaps?

You wrote:

If we are angels, we need no rulers.  If we are devils, then devils will be rulers.  If there are many angels and few devils, then the devils will be the ones who seek power.  If there are many devils and few angels, then the devils will outvote the angels.

And Alexander Hamilton wrote, "To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."

This is why our political system was designed with three coequal branches of government, and other features such as the electoral college, so that the devils in one can be checked by the devils in the other two - so that the system would NOT calculate on the weaker springs of the human character, so that it would have a chance to withstand poor leadership and craven leaders.

Our Constitution was a compromise between the angels and the devils which has endured for hundreds of years.

[AlanM]

Our Constitution was a compromise between the angels and the devils which has endured for hundreds of years.

Yeh, right. The Constitution has been perverted for hundreds of years.

[Braddogg]

Blah blah blahblahblah...... To make the claim that the United States is or ever has been purely benevolent is beyond delusional. ....

True as can be. That's why I said the best ever in history, not PURELY benevolent.

Freak. You're worse than me. 

Objectivist

Okay, even MODERATELY benevolent.  Pick up a freaking history text.

[ladyattis]

Sure, benevolence comes in shades of gray now at Walfart(tm)!

-- Bridget