.....refresher time again, boys and girls.  Now the Obamination IS going to run the banks and bailed out companies, after the One stated he had NO interest in running these companies.  Now they are even talking about controlling companies that did NOT take money in the bailouts.  Is the Obamination the "American Form of Government"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

This is a great resource for our study:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/

After a better idea of how coercion (neutrally implied) relates to governmental power, we will have a better idea of the concepts of police power (neutrally implied) and of military power (neutrally implied).

And then considering our position in the world, we can then assess how "small" our government really can possibly be.

Assignment for you, Mr. JackA.

What does "coercive power" have to do with "political philosophy".

Put those both into Google at the same time (with quotes) and find out what you get. 

After a little searching, you might find that one is a part of the definition of the other.

Jack......please participate.

Here is what I wrote before you posted what you did.

Don't read into anything I'm writing except what is at face value.

Be sincere, that is all I ask.

""""I am NOT saying to cut the military budget.  I'm saying that if you don't cut the military budget, you won't have the small government that you are aiming for.""""

I do not equate a healthy military with having a "large" government. I don't know, maybe you do see military spending as our number one budget priority as "large" government.  I don't.  I see LARGE government as a government taking our earnings, and using that money to control virtually everything we do.  Using that money to set up a socialist utopia as they see it.  Using that money to pass one after another 1000 page bills that do nothing more than constrict all we do, and make all our decisions for us.  I don't see the military taking away any of our freedoms and rights.............

Wry, per usual, your last post was another example of being in the realm of being plain academic..........

Jack.  I am speaking very narrowly.  I am choosing my words as carefully as I can. And I'm making 1 point.  Don't read into anything I'm writing except what is at face value.

I am NOT saying to cut the military budget.  I'm saying that if you don't cut the military budget, you won't have the small government that you are aiming for.

"""""Over 60% of the discretionary spending (the only thing that can be cut) for the US Budget is military and intelligence related (2009 budget). 

The top 3 non-military related totals sum to about 13%. (Health and Human Services, Education and HUD)""""

wuw - have you ever looked into what all gets included in the "military" budget......I've seen a lot of amendments added to military spending bills for non-military purposes.  And I think there is a lot of shell games being played to get those numbers. 

I believe you are putting a bad connotation on us spending for our military.  My thought is that the number one obligation of the federal government should be the protection of our country.  The problem is, I believe, that we have become the policeman of the world.  And we do spend much more that the rest of the world in proportion for this effort.  I would love to see the rest buck up and provide their share.  Maybe then, nations such as Canada wouldn't be the shining star for progressives as an example for government healthcare.  AND we could cut back on military spending.  The problem is, and especially people of ND will not like this, but the military has become another form of government welfare.  Whether we need bases in ND ought to be left to the military, not he likes of people like Dorgan.

wry's - """"I'll comment on the ILLEGAL wiretaps in another reply""""

"I'll"?......really, wry? There wasn't a creative thought in the whole thing from you.  You got the whole thing from the moonbat "Impeach Bush" site.  The only thing by you was your consistently petulant immature moonbat dribble at the end.  And for you to try to come of as an "academic", actually your just academic.  Anyone interested, the "Impeach Bush" group started BEFORE Bush was even inaugurated into office. 

Wry, how's that "impeach Bush" workin' out for ya?

Well I guess we found out what "small government" means, the same as "compassionate conservative" and "no child left behind"...........

No federal income tax.  

1. 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional. [NYTimes] [WashPost]


2. 8/19/07 - New York Times says "Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records..."

Bush Conducted Illegal Wiretaps of American Citizens

Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

1. 2003 - Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation's FF's lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a "splitter" that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From "Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room", Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]


2. 12/15/05 - The New York Times reveals that "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials." The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.


3. Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]


4. Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says "We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect." Then later "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two." The distinction is that "detecting" requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like "bomb" in Arabic, or maybe even "impeach Bush" in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]


5. More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War," on page 303. " Bush summarized his strategy: 'Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.'" [WaPost]


6. James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it "did not comply with the law". On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them. On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program. [NYTimes]


7. Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]


8. Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.


9. According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.


10. 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Reply...

Joseph. Could you please clarify: Are you saying that zero taxes is a good thing? Or do you have some other revenue gathering method you would prefer?

And if so, what type of federal government are you envisioning? [Please say something other than "small"....I'm looking for just a little (not much) detail regarding structure.

Sometimes Joe you just make me come out of retirement.   No taxes is a good thing.

.."..for one, Joe, a federal government that does NOT have the right to take in it's revenues from the states and their people (and that IS where it does come from), and then hold the states and their people hostage to get that money back by having to pass laws demanded of it by the federal government.  This is just flat wrong however you look at it.........."

OK Jack, no federal income tax now what?