FTP: Like I stated, I hope I’m wrong. I don’t think I am, and to support my point you provided a little glimpse into the authoritarianism your side goes gushy over.

“Why don’t you do get on board...”

That wasn’t a question, it was a command wasn’t it? lol

FTP are you implying that people who post for the grok do not have a single good idea? Are you so partisan blinded that you refuse to objectively evaluate the fiscal state we are in and thus are reduced to attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message?

I don't imply things. I say them directly. Granite grok has a horrible history of bigotry, lunacy, and making up their own reality. It's just like Fox news. Even worse, you have people like Scott insinuating violence as a result of not getting their way. See the picture above as a classic example.

@FTP "insinuating violence" that's what you got out of the piece? That's very telling. I'm not going to try to explain it further, if you didn't get it, you didn't get it. I write for enjoyment at a level that expects a modicum of intellectual honesty. I do expect invidious gadflies to smart over it however, so thanks.

Of course it is, Scott. You didn't get your way, so you are implying this is the end, where we will soon descend into the violence in Greece you see on Faux news. Are you trying to tell me your stock image of rioting does not depict violent imagery that you are linking to our future because Obama won?

I doubt you have ever had "intellectual" outrage.

And when FTP does not get his way it is because of racism or bigotry.

@FTP, Violence already has happened as a result of "people not getting their way" here in America; the Occupy Wall Street movement is an excellent example as there were many niche groups that did indeed get violent. Extrapolate that to what would happen if we do nothing and have to take the steps Greece is taking? Or worse yet if we continue down the path that the best jobs and only job growth is from the government and then the credit line of deficit spending stops? Do you honestly not believe there would people who are going to "burn this m*******cker down" as campaign adds suggested at the mere event of Romney winning? You are very naive if you think that is the case; very naive indeed.

FTP:

The pictures are of the Greeks responding, naturally, to the austerity imposed on them so that the banksters can get paid. When the dollar collapses, all of us will be on one side or the other of that police line (depending on one's support for Obama or general wealth.) The picture is not one suggesting that conservatives are going to riot at this point. I am curious, what about the problem of obvious voter fraud in this election? Again, I am glad that Romney lost and so this is not sour grapes, but an actual concern for the integrity of our system. That Romney cheated Paul does not make me happy to see Obama cheat Romney. Romney may also have cheated in this election. If it were a Patriots game, most of us here would be ripping mad--but not riot like the Greeks. Why so little attention to the voter fraud?

Hey thanks Gary!

Aren't you guys sitting next to each other in the Grok secret lair?

@Mike Healey, lol. No Gary's not a Groker. But I do like your idea of a secret lair. I'll have to look into that.

He is makes it onto the Grok an awful lot.

An FOG Friend of Grok maybe

@Mike - LOL You are normally the one insulting some conservative commenter in a thread as a "conspiracy theorist" and now look at you posing your own ... that's cute.

As for your curiosity, I would certainly characterize myself as friendly to the Grok. It is on my daily reading list and I rarely miss a day. I may not agree with all I read there but that is not what the Grok authors are after (at least I don't think so). For me, the Grok offers a unique and thought provoking take on many issues of the day. I like that they don't tell me what to think but rather give me their point of view along with some of the rationale that brought them to their conclusions. They encourage their readers to check things out for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. They are MUCH better than most sites I visit at disclosing their biases. I prefer that approach as opposed to many news/blog sites that claim impartiality yet still drive an agenda.

I have never seen an original thought on the Grok, just warmed over right wing propaganda, I did see a three part "How much the Grok loves Gary G. Krupp" video series which led me to believe that you people might know each other. Not many centrists or liberals make it on the Grok buddy list.
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/03/candidate-gary-krupp-for-merrimack-town-school-board

And here is a editorial where the Grok refers to you as "my friend Gary Krupp"
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/10/is-my-school-board-ready-to-run-on-the-nhsba-agenda

@Mike - Whew, can't fool you. I was masquerading as a complete stranger in the hopes that my comments on the Patch website will advance the vast right wing conspiracy. Moo Ha Ha. And I would have gotten away with it too if weren't for you meddling kids! So give Scoobie-Doo a Scoobie snack and pat yourself on the back. LOL

Yes, I know Mr. Morales and Mr. MacDonald, both of whom live in the same town as me and their kids attend the same school system as mine. Your crack research might have also turned up the fact that I ran for school board in our town. The Grok reached out to interview me during the campaign and we learned that we hold many common principles. Is that somehow relevant to my complimenting Scott on his blog?

It was very obvious to me that the Grok crew and the Friends Of Grok make a conscious effort to to self congratulate each other, creating an elusion that there are more than a few of you who sit at that extreme, but I though I would point it out to everyone else.

Your original coy denial that you were in the circle is very telling.

So your thesis is that because we know each other and tend to agree that I am somehow disqualified from complimenting Scott on what I think is a well written blog? Give me a break.

If you want to play the disclosure game, you should disclose how much you and your cohorts are being paid to fill the comment sections on various news websites with lies, misinformation and insults. I hope you are getting more than the Obama door-to-door crew were getting. Is your rate by the hour or by the post?

Just going to chime in and say, I'm not paid for what I write. I genuinely love and welcome my neighbors. It might cause you some despair to know that my neighbors come in all shapes and sizes, orientations, ethnicities, skill levels, and in general represent the full spectrum. That is what often motivates me to address your drivel-and others like you- on this patch, because your group consistently alienates and vilifies people who are different than you are. It's nasty, mean-spirited, and unwelcome.

@FTP - I would like to hear which of my posts you would classify as "nasty, mean-spirited, and unwelcome". I also love my neighbours and it offends me that you imply that I don't. Let's just agree that based on our interactions on this website, there is really very little we can "know" about each other. I enjoy a good reasoned debate but frankly, in this comments area on Patch, the only person whose views differ greatly from my own that I have found willing to have that kind of discourse is "Tammy". She and I have had a couple of very good exchanges in my view where I think we both walked away learning something about the another view and even found *gasp* common ground. You and others here tend to prefer Ad hominem attacks. I'd like to understand things from your perspective (and others) but there is so rarely an opportunity when I can do that. Generally your 2nd or 3rd sentence rights off anything I say as coming from a "right-wing extremist", "radical", etc. etc.

Self engrandizing as it may sound, I think I do a better job than most here in my efforts to foster an intellectually honest and civil debate. I don't know it all nor do I pretend to but learning from your side can be tiresome because of the extra effort required to ignore insults and sweeping generalizations about what I must believe based simply on the fact that I don't often align politically with your side. Are there people on my side that suffer these same flaws, yes. I try not to be one of them.

Yes my posts are worthy of pay, I consider them donations to thinking American's everywhere. I do write them off on my taxes(Mitt Romney showed me how).

"You mean most terrorists plots setup by the Government to entrap the unintelligent and then DHS swoops in just the nick of time to foil the plan ... whew! Lucky for us!"
-Gary,November 6

Here's one, Gary.

Okay ... I'll give you that it is a bit snarky but do you think it really rises to the level of "nasty, mean-spirited, and unwelcome"? I mean I am criticizing the Government, not a particular poster. Given that several of the terrorists plots foiled by authorities (even back in the Bush administration) were sting operations, isn't that a valid criticism? It could be wrong but it is not without basis.

I think your grasp on reality has slipped.

The majority of those who support Obama do not believe in the JFK adage "Ask not what your country can do for you..ask what you can do for your country". I heard John Kennedy say those words that were echoed across the country to the cheers of millions. During those times people believed in pulling together in a common effort for the betterment of the country and their fellow citizens. The "I'm entitled to it, give it to me" attitude was non-existent back then. People were willing to work...and work hard...for anything they wanted. This country will never be great again unless and until that attitude prevails again. When a country relies on the federal government to provide, either directly or through legislation, nearly everything the people need and where the government attempts to legislate the elimination of class distinction on both economic and social levels, the government becomes the powerful element and the citizenry is reduced to a voiceless mass who's sole purpose of existence is to support and enhance the reach and power of the government.

Code for higher taxes. They are coming to you pretty quickly.

Proud Conservative, you don't know what you are talking about. The world that you people see doesn't exist in reality, it is a fiction of those who currently have power and want to keep it, and endeavor to keep people like you angry and blind so they can continue to raid the cookie jar.
Government absolutely has the right and the duty to legislate to promote fairness and a level playing field.

Wrong Con, it's the me, me, me'ers who want war without any sacrifice, who want safe roads without paying for road in the next street, who want an educated society while falling for the privatize lie.

It's not the voters who want a whole, safe, forward moving country, the problem is the separatists, the free staters, the libertarians who think they come first... Not our country.

It's selfishness that Reagan told us was AOK and every Republican leader since then, and that will be our downfall.

@Jan: Thanks for supplying support for my argument: “...subjugate their own needs for the betterment of the group”. Spoken like a true collectivist. I wonder who decides what is for the betterment of the group. The administrative and political classes will, I suspect (e.g., IPAB). Thanks, but I’ll stick with individualism.

@ProudConservative: Right on! "...there is no such thing as a Lost Cause, because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause".- TSE

"Correcting the extremist libertarian agenda of the Teaparty,..."
That's a talking point. Obama supports Libertarians by:
- Supporting gay marriage
- Supporting the right to choose
- Supporting the concept that America should never be forced to go to war.
There are others.
These are all Libertarian concepts;
There is a misconception out there that Republicans = Libertarians. It's not true; one of the reasons women came out and voted anti-Republican was because of the Republican anti-Libertarian view on women.
Please don't insult Libertarians by saying they are actually Republican Tea Party people. i realize that Obama's health care plan and stimulus packages are also anti-libertarian, but that doesn't mean anything in this election as there was proof that the Republican candidate supported both of these things as well despite the campaign rhetoric.

Hey Peter/Toni, curious as to why you changed your name and your profile pic. Interesting. In any case. Aside from your first sentence-- I’m having trouble parsing that into anything coherent--given an argument against dependency and what it leads to, including the decay of human spirit, you counter with the success of communist and socialist countries to support your side? Then I don’t think we’re in disagreement, we just measure success differently. Success to me is the individual over the collective, it appears that your definition is that the collective over the individual. It’s Locke vs. Rousseau. Nothing new.

I would guess that Peter changed his moniker to Toni because every conversation he started degraded to ugly diatribes about his entrepreneurship and his companies field of expertise.

Imagine if every conversation you started was dismissed because of your career choice.

Scott: you are correct that socially the Teaparty is anti libertarian/ big Government. But on business and free markets they have highly naive, fact free and anarchistic views on markets. Structuring markets has always been part of the public domain. From Covent Garden to Faneuil hall. That is a big part of the agenda of my libertarian friends. Usually more important then social liberties. The Teaparty wants to get Government out of business into the bedroom :).

Re Scott: you were trying to make the point that America's exceptional economic performance was under threat from a bigger role of Government. I quoted a wide variety of communist, socialist AND (very) conservative and free market focussed countries to falsify the causality you postulated.

My view is that the size of Government isn't the issue, but its competence and degree of corruption. That's a blog worth of content. Not a comment:)

@Publius/James/John/Alexander/Peter/Toni - (I know. Cheap Federalist joke. Had to. It’s rare to find the chance to fire one off.) Ahh, well that explains the cross talk, and it appears to be my fault. I didn’t mean exceptional to be “exceptional economic performance.” I should have better clarified what I meant by exceptionalism or just added the link that follows. Sorry about that.

http://merrimack.patch.com/blog_posts/celebrate-the-4th-and-american-exceptionalism

My reaction was to your comment above about the decay of nations. And the fact that many countries without rugged individualism seem to be doing quite well by a number of measures. "American decline" is often defined as a relative decline to other nations like the BRICs . Is that not what you mean with decay of nations?
Actually Europe did better then the US in terms of GDP per capita under GW Bush. Under Obama the US is doing significantly better then Europe (2-3% lower unemployment/1% higher growth)
What do you mean with the decay of other nations? Not the move from European Empires and totalitarian regimes to modern welfare states I presume? There is little individualism in China and the old soviet block , but that is not decay - there never was any. Some even think that the state capitalism is a pathway to less collectivists approaches. Its certainly challenging US free enterprise in many sectors: cars, telecom, PCs, solar, wind, infrastructure etc.
Or are you saying that as the US becomes more similar to other countries, we are decaying to their state of collectivism. Clintons "solving problems together" is then defined as a form of collectivism, and thus less individualism and thus decay. Which has just a bit of a circular feel to it in which decay has no other meaning then the one you give it :). Doesn't that remind you of Alice in Wonderland? Which was a great place for Tea parties indeed. Albeit with many queens indeed!

Scott, such an august Federalist line up is way beyond me. I'm really not!

@Publius: Wow, you put a lot there. I was trying to find a terse way to reply to your comments (there's a point beyond which a new blog is warranted over a reply) and almost gave up. To answer your question about what I mean when I say decay (I really couldn't follow the "circular feel" bit, so I'm not exactly sure I'm answering your question), google: "societal decay" and poke around the results.

BTW: I didn't think you were a Federalist lol. It was just a reference to "publius".

Steve From NH,
No, I’m not a Randian. I’m not sure what you inferred from the piece because I never stated, nor implied, that, “professional, hard working, intelligent, self-reliant individuals” are ruining this country. On the contrary, those are attributes I fear will wane and we’ll lose. Nor did I specify any people as “... the exceptional ones”, I’m not sure where you got that. But after reading your post a few times through, I think we may have more in common than I first thought. I do value the attributes that I just listed.

I guess your piece reminded me a lot of what I remember reading in "Atlas Shrugged". Quite a lot, actually.
I firmly believe in the value of hard working, intelligent, self-reliant individuals, and I don't think those values are waning at all.
Yes, there are moochers, and there are dependents on the government, but the biggest ones are the ones that scream the loudest about "makers and takers" and "free markets", from offices on Wall Street. The 'takers' are on both sides, and the ones taking the most were sitting at that table listening to Romney talk about 47%.
I think, and I hope that those people who work hard and are self reliant (most of us, by a long shot) but are at the lower end of the economic and influence scale are able to get a better shot on a more equal playing field after Tuesday.

Mike, historic loss?....hardly. What is historic about it? No mandate was set. In fact, the election shows the country is basically 50/50 in ideology. Its not the end of teh Republican party.

I fully support the Electoral College system but the popular vote is interesting. All the votes are not counted yet but they lost by about 2.5% of the popular vote. They lost because less republicans came out to vote for Romney then came out to vote for McCain in 2008. President Obama had 10 million less turnout for him, then in 2008. So, less people, from both sides voted this time.
Republicans maintained control of the house.
Republicans also picked up one Governors office.
Wisconsin voted for Obama as President but also voted to put Republicans back in control of their state legislature.

And what is it with you Democrats. Why is it that every time a Republican expresses a different idea or belief, you brand them as liars. When Republicans show facts to support their argument you say they made them up and are lying. Its 3rd grade, sophmoric.

Republican's are creating their own facts, I have no problem with different points of view.

As for "3rd grade, sophomoric" arguments that someone " say they made them up and are lying". Lets look at the right attack of polls and Nate Silver in particular. Attacking fact because it didn't match your world view, that is just crazy. The right even went so far as to make fake polls to make themselves fell better about themselves. Its self destructive. As soon as you can see that, the sooner we can all start talking about real solutions to real issues.

As for historic,
There was no way Republican's should have lost a seat with the unemployment so high. The only reason you lost is you guys couldn't stick to reality of facts. Trying to sell fake controversies like "you didn't build that" and "Fast and Furious" and "Bengahzi". You guys need to come out of the bubble and stop creating giants out of windmills.

Ha!!! Oh my, this is hysterical:

"And what is it with you Democrats. Why is it that every time a Republican expresses a different idea or belief, you brand them as liars. When Republicans show facts to support their argument you say they made them up and are lying. Its 3rd grade, sophmoric."

Firstly, a quick scan of any political post here on Patch or just about anywhere else shows that the Republican side is much quicker to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks -- comrade, communist, socialist, anti-American, and on and on.

Secondly, do you happen to remember the Bush years? Questioning pResident Bush on even the most minor of issues led to charges of treason by Republicans. Whatever happened to your dedication to the sanctity of the authority granted to the President in the Constitution?

Republicans have been spreading lies about Obama for four years (Muslim, Kenyan, apology tour, etc.), and it failed you in this election. Maybe it's time to reconsider your strategy.

Mike, you proved my point when you say "Trying to sell fake controversies like "you didn't build that" and "Fast and Furious" and "Bengahzi".
Put your politics aside for a moment. President Obama won, and the election is over,
We could discuss the meaning of President Obama saying "you didn't build that" or Mitt Romney saying "the 47%" . It doesn't matter, the election is over.
However, the discussion about national security is valid and the facts are;
The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, was held in contempt of Congress because of Fast and Furious. He has since been protected by Executive Privilege.
Benghazi deserves a full and thorough investigation because 4 American heros were killed, by terrorists!!!. The first US Ambassador in 30 years was killed in the line of duty.

And you say they are "fake controversies". Fake controversies....lets hope this country NEVER becomes a country where the answers from those in power are not forthcoming.

Skram, there is name calling on both sides, as there has been in every political election since Adams and Jefferson. I watch MSNBC and read the NYT on a regular basis. The vitriol and lack of information produced by either organization is deafening. Yes Limbaugh and Hannity does it on the right, as does Mathews , Schultz and Maddow on the left, What is different though is MSNBC and NYT do not report on many events or severly bias the story to their point of view. And on MSNBC, the common theme is, the Republicans are lying again

Eric Holder, was held in contempt of Congress because of blatant Republican grandstanding.

"There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the botched "gun-walking" scandal known as "Fast and Furious" before Congress began asking him about it in early 2011, according to a long-awaited report by the Justice Department's inspector general. "
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/eric-holder-cleared-fast-and-furious-report-14-others-face-discipline/57031/

Oh Jan, If growing up means being consumed by the collective, I say, "Never"!
"I won't grow up,
I don't want to go to your school.
Just to learn to be a parrot,
And recite your silly rule."
You can try, try, try, but my reply is, "Live Free!!! Or Die!!!"

The cost of a cab ride is peanuts compared to what all of us are going to face in the form of increased taxes, increased costs and runaway inflation all courtesy of Barack Obama. Don't believe it? Just wait a while. As the old saying goes...."You ain't seen nothin' yet."

There was plenty of baseless "You ain't seen nothin' yet." threats before the election, and they keep coming.

Jan,
Do you honestly believe that Romney himself cancelled the credit cards or was even aware of when they would be canceled? This was most likely done by some accounting manager in the campaign. Unless you can prove he knew it or did it, it is wrong to be calling him "mean".

Also of note, without Republican gerrymandering Democrats would have won control of the House as well.

I'm glad you agree.

@ Butts
Fools like you repeat the same mistake time after time. I guess that what it takes to be a fool like you. You do have a lot of company in that regard, I will have to admit that.

Watching a lot of Faux News irene?
Where are there "massive layoffs"?

@Irene J. Thanks.

No layoff announcements from Caterpillar since the election,
no CVPH Medical Center layoff's,
do I have go through all of them?

Its your story irene.

irene, you do know that TheBlaze is a fake news site created by Glenn Beck, right?

Irene-Glenn Beck sites are not a reliable source.

There are layoffs and hirings every day in America.

Lots of slurs coming out out your mouth Jack.
"Class"? Why would someone like you expect anything but the same hateful spew you have been spitting out all day?

Yes, When regular people have more money they spend it, when rich people have more money, they hide it from the tax man. Hiding money does nothing to help America's economy.But you don't have to take my word for it. People have studied this and have proven it out.
The Numbers Don't Lie-Why Lowering Taxes For The Rich No Longer Works To Grow The Economy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/16/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-lowering-taxes-for-the-rich-no-longer-works-to-grow-the-economy/

They are also going to have to figure out how to get into office with ideas that offend the majority. An assault on math?

And couldn't we content that it is the Democrats who are the more conservative party on many issues. Republican radical ideas of unfunded tax breaks, unfunded and unwanted expansions of the military, effort to rewrite the constitution to impose federal law on women and their doctors? There is nothing conservative about any of those efforts.

While I won't speak for PC, I am fairly sure that he meant today's definition of conservative principles, not a 1700's view. Some of those conservative principles include a weak Federal government, strong State governments, ample protections for the people from their government and low taxation. Those are certainly principles this country was founded upon. I might add that they had a healthy distrust of government in general.

As to what made America great, that is certainly debatable. While I don't think the Great Society initiatives were a rightful role of the Federal Government, I admit that the highway and waterway projects did contribute to an infrastructure that promoted prosperity. I think it is was with negative consequences too but I leave that for another discussion.

For me, I think boiling it down to one thing or another that contributed to America's greatness is difficult. If I had to pick one, I say that the limited role of government coupled with the industrial revolution fueled by our unique capitalistic society bread entrepreneurship and innovation leading to America's greatness. The system is built on rugged individualism and offers incredible incentives to those willing to take the risk. Despite efforts by some of all political persuasions, even today, to institute a cast-type system to protect their own standing in society, capitalism is still the one wild card that offers anyone an opportunity to better his circumstances.

Today's definition of conservativism still means the same thing: A general resistance to change.

What you want to call "conservative principles" are something else entirely. They're political reaction, which the renowned right-wing historian John Lukacs described as a desire to revert to an earlier phase of history. "Proud Conservative's" position does not tend to contradict that.

Today's self-described "conservatives" are mislabeled. They're to the right of conservatism, and that makes them reactionaries.

The Founders were not explicitly against taxation; they were against taxation without political representation for the geographic region of the American colonies in the English Parliament. The Founders wanted a stronger federal government than they had, so they scrapped the Articles of Confederation and replaces it with the Constitution of the United States. They were less resistant to formal change than we are today. They were more radical, not less so, and it was their willingness to formalize radical change into legal frameworks that proves their general faith in the necessity of government.

The rise of the United States as the mightiest nation on earth, and the world's richest society is aligned with the successes of the New Deal, the rise of trade unionism and liberal, pro-government principles applied into managing a global war against the Axis powers and then extending them into conducting the Cold War. The alignment is not just a coincidence.

I'll concede that the term "conservative" is incredibly ambiguous. For me it refers to a principle that government ought to do those things which are absolutely necessary and within the definition of powers given it by the founding documents and nothing more. That's off the top of my head so I doubt the definition is bullet proof but that is the general.

As for the move from the Articles to the Constitution, I will again agree that the founders recognized that the Articles did not cede enough power to the Central Government in order for it to effectively manage squabbles between the States. That said, I don't think the Founders envisioned anything like what we have today in terms of nearly absolute Federal control over the States. The Constitution is still a very limiting document intended to restrain the Federal Government.

Lastly, your perspective on the wars is interesting. I tend to agree that WWI, WWII & The Cold War were huge influences on our ascension on the world stage but how do you link that with the New Deal? I mean, if those were the only ingredients to becoming a world superpower, wouldn't Great Britain be right there with us? They clearly had as much invested in the war efforts as we did and if the New Deal is good, GB's social programs make the New Deal look like No Big Deal. Granted GB is no slouch, but they are no economic or military superpower either. What prevented them from taking a spot on the stage alongside us?

I don't concede that the intention of the Constitution is to "restrain" the national government. The intention of the Constitution is to create a system whereby we Americans can govern ourselves. It leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

I only link WWII and the Cold War to the New Deal, primarily because the actors are either the same or their inheritors. Roosevelt inaugurated the New Deal, and he and Truman conducted WWII. Truman initiated the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and he did not dismantle the Pentagon at WWII's end. Eisenhower largely continued his policies, with only slight permutations in tactics, but none in strategy.

It was the role of the government that changed with the New Deal, and that same role is what won WWII and helped to kick-start the mass prosperity that followed WWII, with formal legal support for trade unionism and government support for national projects that contributed to the basis for our continued prosperity.

If you want to make a comparison to the UK, then I think that it's not so easy when England itself did not occupy a vast continent with incredible natural resources. But England DID occupy the stage alongside us until we surpassed them in WWII. The English were the world's greatest empire just before us.

That's basic history. I'm surprised that you question it like you don't already know. Given the original basis for this discussion, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

"That's basic history. I'm surprised that you question it like you don't already know. Given the original basis for this discussion, maybe I shouldn't be surprised."

If my level of knowledge on the subject is not up to your standard, please feel free to discontinue the conversation. My intent was not to be a burden but rather to understand your perspective.

One last question if you will indulge me ... if you don't see the Constitution as a limiting document, how do you square the verbiage in the 10th Amendment? It doesn't seem like there is much room for interpretation there.

The powers granted to the United States include those which allow the national government "to promote the general welfare," so the Tenth Amendment is not as limiting as some will insist.

If the Constitution were not subject to interpretation, then we wouldn't need a plurality of jurists and one ruling on a topic would stand forever.

Looks like I messed up the thread ... sorry about that.

My claim wasn't that the Constitution needs no interpretation ... I do claim that the 10th Amendment is intended to specifically limit the power of the Federal Government. Furthermore, I reject the argument that wording in the preamble gives any specific power to the Government. The wording in the preamble would, however, be useful to SCOTUS in cases were Founder's Intent is one of the tests used.

The founders liked the concept of general welfare so much that they mentioned it twice in the Constitution, and they also gave Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying it into execution. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. Very rarely does the Supreme Court strike down a federal law by citing the Tenth Amendment

"Very rarely does the Supreme Court strike down a federal law by citing the Tenth Amendment" ... but has it ever upheld one citing the Preamble?

Well, Mr. Krupp, while I concede that I can't cite a case where the general welfare in the preamble has been cited, I can definitely state that it isn't impossible that it could be when "to form a more perfect union," also in the preamble, has been cited ("White v. Texas" 1869), so you can't say out of hand that something mentioned in the preamble is vacant and carries no weight merely because "it's only the preamble." It has significance, and it is also repeated in the enumerated powers of Congress to justify its power of taxation.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
-Declaration of Independence

Sure sounds an awful lot like working together for the common good.

What's ironic about proponents of individualism and Ayn Rand devotees is that they use the tools of collectivism to work against community.

In any event, even if one were to assume that we need to get back to "what our founding fathers" intended, one would have to disregard the fact that the Constitution is a living document that has been amended 27 times, and even amendments about amendments! Disregarding progress is against what our founding fathers intended; nay, they specifically provided the tools to do it.

Eventual government overthrow? Last I heard, there were calls for it in 2009 & 10. Then the tea party came in, blew itself up and ruined Mitt Romney's chances to be president--that is, those chances he didn't ruin himself. You won't be able to change government through elections, so violence is all you'll have left.

And Abraham Lincoln had something to say about that. I paraphrase: "That which has been fairly settled by the ballot cannot be won by bullets."

Clark - I said "that approach has been tried many times throughout history in numerous countries and the result has been nothing short of failure, citizen discontent and unrest and eventual government overthrow". And that is historically factual.

That's historical baloney, "Proud Reactionary," if you want to say that it is anywhere near applicable to the United States of America. We're not the Soviet Union, nor are we even close to trending in that direction. To suggest otherwise is the absurdity of the tea party's balderdash with false cries of tyranny, and it's precisely what you're doing when you bring it up in the inappropriate context of Publicans losing presidential elections, which is what this thread is generally about.

It's a lot of weeping about loss of freedom and the United States in decline, which is silly because we never really had so much freedom to begin with when you consider that under right wing notions of law and order, we lock up more of our own population than any other nation on earth. We're not legally free to possess marijuana for our own private purposes. Your neighbors can use town ordinances to make you keep your lawn mowed. You can't take your home, your very own private property, and convert it into a fast-food drive-through if the neighborhood isn't zoned that way.

And the United States is nowhere near to being in decline. Russia is no longer an empire in competition with the USA, and its likely replacement as America's mortal enemy, the People's Republic of China (PRC), does not possess the military might, and, even more importantly, is not enmeshed in a global network of strategic military alliances. Thinking that the USA is in decline is utterly unfounded.

What does race have to do with anything? Racist comments are not welcome on Patch...

Nice argument, "Misguided Conservative." So thoroughly thought out. I can't find a chink in your reasoning, because there isn't any. Just naked assertion unadorned by fact.

Clark, if you can't see how and where the United States is in decline, there is simply no point in discussing this matter with you. It would be akin to discussing the beauty of a piece of art with a blind person.

If you can't describe how the United States is in decline, then you're not worth listening to.

I am confused as to how anyone could not see that our nation is in decline. Our debt is massive, our dollar weak, our trade deficits ridiculous, our armies overtaxed, our enemies grown stronger, our friends in Europe weakened by debt and other factors, our high energy costs, and our 14.7 percent unemployment (if you count the people who have stopped looking for work. This is the U-6 rate.)

We have also been living an unstainable lifestyle with personal debt making up the difference between our incomes and spending. Also, in the past decades of relative wealth, we have borrowed approxmately a third of our federal spending (give or take). This means that we cannot even agree amongst ourselves as to how to spend and to share the burden of that spending. We have attempted to force future generations to take that burden.

We do have the promise of additional wealth from our oil and gas resources. My guess is that we wlll get that wealth, wih the hideous costs of destroying the water tables beneath lands owned and used by our poorest citizens, whose children will be taxed to pay for the clean-up. But that is simply my understanding of how we American are likely to treat our fellows as we drill for gas, pump in millions of gallons of "undisclosed" toxic chemicals in the hopes that pipes will not break.

In other words, we have a lot of problems as a nation, and as a world, we are very near the end of the current failed experiment with fiat currencies.

American's have no idea what types of fantasies you tell each other in that right wing bubble. But we will be waiting for you in reality whenever you want to come out.

Don't be surprised if "Proud Conservative" is actually Dump Obama (aka Dumpy) who was consistently wrong on every single point that they made and was proven so on Election day and was too afraid to show their face again on here. I only say that because first Dumpy tried to go back and modify their own posting history by deleting tons of the garbage that they flooded these sites with and when they got caught doing that, they ended up just going in and deleting the account. Now I look at somebody called "proud conservative" and their posting history starts up not during this passionate election season, but only after Dumpy disappeared, after the election. If you go to Proud Conservative's history, there seems to be some suspicious overlap on the (currently) 5th page if you click on "comments" in their profile. It is the typically rude and uninformed type of post that Dumpy used to make and it is dated for 11/5 to be in this thread: http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/articles/mitt-romney-vote-for-love-of-country

Here is the first line of content of that message in PC's history; "...the press will refer to Obama as former president Obama, but the truth is he was never a president." But if you do a search on page in that article, the post has been removed, just as you can see that Dumpy's posts were from this same thread. Can't say for sure, but if I were to be betting money, I would bet that Proud Conservative is Dumpy. Just a little more verbose. Too much to just be coincidence.

I think that I nailed Dumpy switching their profile to Proud Conservative. Proud Conservative had posted 63 posts from 11/7 to 11/11, then as soon as I hit a few threads with this info, PC stopped posting on the spot. Great show of conservative cowardice. I may not agree with people a lot of the time, but at least they show some back bone. Dumpy, with his/her conservative agenda of posting fiction was more of a coward than we could have ever imagined.

You do know that Mitt Romney didn't win, right?

Do you see black helicopters?
Do you want to tell about the interment camps?
How about Agenda 21?
Maybe International Baccalaureate?
The Presidents birth certificate?

COMPLETELY FALSE! U.N. treaty likely to lead to international gun registry
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/aug/10/paul-broun/broun-un-treaty-likely-lead-international-gun-regi/

Top Ron Paul Conspiracy Theories
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/top-ron-paul-conspiracy-theories_n_1182155.html

And if you lived in reality Dennis you would be comforted that President Barack Obama has done nothing to restrict the ownership and possession of guns, and that the UN small arms treaty would have no effect on the ownership of guns in the United States of America. If you had some grasp of reality......

Top Ron Paul Conspiracy Theories
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/top-ron-paul-conspiracy-theories_n_1182155.html

I take it you have very little to offer in way of rebuttal except to call the President names.

The President's birth certificate has been online since June 2008 and yet you are still repeating it like its real. Seems to be a theme with you.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

Ron Paul is a nut, and as for his minions........

Combined with this other non-denial and the tone we are all too familiar with, I would call that confirmation enough:

http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/blog_posts/new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-endorses-obama#comments

Don't worry, you will always be Dumpy to everybody here. The person who showed the lack of character to stand by their own posting history.