Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:

Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid> wrote:

Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote

These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the
bloated mess our government has become today to a simple government
that respects individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it
governs.

On the post office, I think you are nuts. The US post office really
has its act together. Even during the Christmas rush they are
delivering in 3 days. If is not broken, don't fix it.

The USPS loses money almost every year of operation.

Not this year.

Do you really want to pay Fedex prices for your mail?

It is illegal for FedEx to deliver first and third class mail at USPS
prices.

Non sequitur.

Do you really want mail service dropped from all non-profitable
routes?

UPS delivers 25% of its packages to rural routes and makes a profit.

Another inane non sequitur. I wonder if idiots like "Deuteros" can
actually think for themselves or if they do nothing by parrot hate
radio.

What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:45:57 GMT iin
alt.atheism?

Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:fsadq1ha63t58294n3vst26kfs2gl6mcda@4ax.com:

You really want the Crips to have nerve gas?

I knew somebody would mention something like this. In a perfect world,
no government would possess weapons of mass destruction. Obviously
governments have killed more people with WMDs than any private citizen
has so why would you trust them with WMDs? But we don't live in a
perfect world. As for nerve gas, I can make an equivalent using
household chemicals and no law banning nerve gas or whatever could stop
me.

Yes, but if we catch you with it, you go to prison for a very long
time.

I trust my particular government since it has managed to not use a
massive arsenal of WMD since 1945. As a veteran, I know the training
and checks required before you can even work around "special weapons",
let alone be in a position to arm or fire them

I don't like the idea of my neighbor having a nuke in his basement, but
then again I don't like the idea of my government having one either.

I don't like them either, but I know my government has shown
remarkable restraint and has established procedures to prevent the
nation's nuclear weapons from being used by mistake or in haste. Can
your neighbor offer me the same assurances?

And how exactly are you going to fund the government?

While government and taxation are necessary evils, there are methods of
funding the government other than income tax. A national sales tax for
instance.

Which woukld hurt the poor, since prices would effectively skyrocket.

Even the advocates of such a scheme acknowledge that the minimum
needed tax would be in the 20% range.

- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Which would restrict the US Navy to operating within 20 miles of the
coast. We'd also default on about twnety treaties I can think of. And
what about the USMC Embassy guards,

Embassies are American territory.

And how many embassies have their own airports? Are the military and
naval attache's to be restricted to the grounds? And Marine guards
will occassionally want to go out!

You also failed to address the fact that you've just restricted the
United States Navy to littoral waters. They can't even protect our
fishing fleets!

our training missions to allies,
US soldiers attending foreign military schools, and all the other
reasons we travel outside the US?

Perhaps such an amendment would make exceptions for training purposes,
but the general idea is to prevent the government from deploying our
military around the world or maintaining a permanent military presence
in foreign countries.

Our permanent presense in foreign nations are part of negotiated
treaties, ratified by the US Senate in accordance with Article II,
Section 2.

Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.

Ha! So, If the USS Nimitz is attacked, it has to wait for Congress to
gather a quorom, write a Declaration of War, and have the President
sign it?

Here's a clue: On December 7th, 1941, we were attacked without a
formal state of war existing. At US bases across the Pacific,
Americans tried to fight back. under your proposal, they would be in
violation of the law.

No, read again. I mentioned repelling an attack. But perhaps we could
give some sort of time limit, such as, "if attacked, Congress must
declare war within one month in order to continue hostilities," or
something similar.

Go read the War Powers Act. It does exactly what you propose.

At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose
any foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved
to the people, as individuals.

You never served a day, did you. Servicemembers do not get to decide
on their assignments. If Congress has authorized aid to Outer
Slobovia, and the President has ordered the mission, you go if you get
the order. Failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.

Reserve to the people. As in private citizens, not military personnel.

That's not what you wrote,

and you seem to be laboring under the
delusion that we are some sort of Athenian Democracy. We're not.
We're a Federal Republic, with elected leaders in whom we vest the
power to make such decisions.

Seriously, if I told you half the places I went in the mlitary I doubt
you could find them on the map; let alone explain the situation
requiring troops to be sent.

Bad idea. What if a state decides to pay a drastically lower salary
than the average? Just asking for corruption there.

As if it isn't corrupt already? You have a government body that gets to
decide its own pay and benefits.

Yup. Part of the joys of the job.

What makes you think they do now?

The constitution grants immunity to Congressmen and such when they are
performing their official duties. Foreign diplomats also are granted
diplomatic immunity.

Wrong. The Constitution says no such thing. The only thing that
comes close is Article III, Section 2 which reads:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make."

Care to show me a citation that reads otherwise?

- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the
"necessary and proper" clauses.

Why?

Those three clause have singlehandedly contributed to the bloated mess
our government is today.

You'll have to do better than that.

- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in
Article 1 Section 8.

So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.

Airlines have more of an interest in safe air travel than the government
does.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Right, because corporate America, left on its own,
would *never* cut corners to make an extra buck.. go ahead, tell me
another one!

I'm suddenly reminded of the Alaska Airline crash off the coast here
where the NTSB investigation found systimatic failures to procure
repair parts as a part of a budget cutback.

- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices
and control the militia.

Why?

The post office is a government imposed monopoly.

Yes, and? It's not like you don't have other options to send
information (like, oh, email or phone calls) and I can think of a
dozen companies that will ship your packages for you.

The fact is that one of the most essential services a government
provides is the safe transit of mail. The Romans understood that.

One of the purposes of the militia is to oppose government tyrrany. If
the government controls it that kind of defeats its prupose, don't you
think?

Depends. The concept of the militia in the early US was a body of men
who could quickly be drawn upon to defend the nation.

Not the modern
"idiots in camo who think they can fight M1A2s with deer rifles"
idiots who have co-opted the title Militia.

- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)

Why? Don't you think that rebuilding roads and sewers is important?

Yes, but that is a state responsibility.

What about the interstate highway system?

Water projects that were built by the feds and cross state lines?

I trust my particular government since it has managed to not use a
massive arsenal of WMD since 1945. As a veteran, I know the training
and checks required before you can even work around "special weapons",
let alone be in a position to arm or fire them

I don't like the idea of my neighbor having a nuke in his basement, but
then again I don't like the idea of my government having one either.

I don't like them either, but I know my government has shown
remarkable restraint and has established procedures to prevent the
nation's nuclear weapons from being used by mistake or in haste.

<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

In article <fsadq1ha63t58294n3vst26kfs2gl6mcda@4ax.com>,
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.

You statist arrogant fucktard.

Impressive rebuttal.

Your paternalistic presumption that people cannot act for their own
benefit is what leads you to tyranny.

After all, everybody should know whether a passenger jet is being
properly maintained. It's not like they're complicated or anything.