These two articles are an answer to a comment that seemed to infer I was attacking basic American values on my last rant. I wasn't attacking anything, I was observing that they had gotten twisted and contorted into MONEY being God.
I don't believe in a welfare state, I don't believe money is evil,....Sometimes people do evil THINGS with it but that is on them,
I believe there is a limit where "profit" becomes obcene and gluttonous at the expense of other people
I believe in FREEDOM and the RIGHT to have and bear arms........for everybody not one side or the other
....I DON'T believe this has to be an either/or country
.......I think FDRs second bill of rights was a good thing
.....I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I believe in hard work..I been doin it all my life...because I LIKE it not because it's the only thing I was CAPABLE of doing with my life or COULD do NOW for that matter.
Believing there is a need for more fairness and balance in this thing called capitolism does not mean I am attacking our basic values...it means I believe we as a people could be BETTER than we are. Me included
American Values
by Guy Reel
What is America? What are the values it has most fought for and admired? A few of the first, and most important, come to mind:
Freedom. Equality. Democracy. Champion of the little guy. Helper of the oppressed. Defender against tyranny.
Some of the other values are ingrained in our history and our belief in our future:
Capitalism. Independence. Strength. Rightness and righteousness. Manifest destiny. God. Freedom of religion. Family. Wealth.Faith.
Entertainment and happiness.
Even a casual reader of these values can see where conflicts might arise among them. Capitalism and strength have made America great, but they have generated their own set of inequalities. Our wealth is unequaled, but Jesus taught that our faith should make wealth meaningless. Equality is a wonderful ideal, but frankly, not everyone is created equal. Freedom is fine until we see our vast money-obsessed entertainment and happiness apparatus assaulting us with base immorality, cowardly news, and stupidity.
Over the last twenty years or so, the most radical members of the right wing have claimed they've owned the core American values that I've just enumerated; moreover, they've claimed that liberals have tried to defeat them. Therefore, they argue, liberals are trying to ruin the American way of life. They claim that liberals are a threat to our very future. For those who question this assumption, they need only to listen to talk radio, Fox news and the Republican leadership who pass for responsible voices in our democracy.
Their methods are not surprising. Because here is their dirty little secret: The far right must gain its identity from imagined enemies. Because without these imagined enemies, the ultra-right wing is not viable. Without the imagined enemies, you just have - America. It is an America struggling with competing interests among its core values. It should try to help the poor while building wealth for us all; it should try to lead the world without exploiting or dominating it; it should not be ashamed of a faith in God but should never discriminate against those of different beliefs; and it should try to figure out balances between those "right and left" policy disputes, such as protection of the environment versus encouraging development.
This is the true American value: We are a nation of compromises. The Constitution is a document of concessions between competing interests. We weigh the right of the accused against the power of prosecutors; we weigh the power of judges against Congress and the president; we weigh the power of the people against the strength of the government.
Yet this is the problem with the right wing today. When a political faction encourages an atmosphere that makes these competing principles evil and corrupt - even the idea that there should be competition among them - it threatens the very essence of America. It must be said outright: These strange Americans are fighting against the founding values of this nation.
The radical reactionaries (it is absurd to call them conservatives) have convinced about half of Americans that the basic American values - the values of balancing various competing interests - are evil and anti-American. This is where the future of America is threatened, and it must be fought at every turn.
What we have seen is the creation of a culture of hate in America, and that is not too strong of a characterization. The radicals vilify those who disagree with them -they must do this to survive. For without the enemies that they themselves imagine, they are nothing. After the imagined enemies are gone, they have nothing to rant against, except the notion of American values. Therefore, if they lose their enemies, they lose America.
America is a balancing act. Sometimes we slip off the wire. No one said it would be easy. No one said it was simple. It's a work in progress, and it always will be. The danger to America is when we allow those who vilify basic American values to have the loudest voices.
Guy Reel is an assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University.
FDR gave us "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."
Among these rights, he said, are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
"The right to a good education."
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
That "Guy" is full of crap. And FDR's bill of rights is nothing short of socialism. Not only that but he contridicts himself. "We" have to provide for those who have too little when "they" have a right to a decent job??? "...freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad." Here he is talking about implentation of regulations on a global scale, thus dissolving our sovernity through global governance. Somehow, allowing a foregin government to dictate how we run our country seems un-american to me.
There are things in his article I don't agree with either....I used it because of the parts about compromise and balance being core American values.
He WAS wrong about one thing tho...he should have included radical far LEFT when he was talking about what is going to destroy our future more than anythng. Far right or left either one will never work because they BOTH want to own the whole enchilada.
I also don't agree that manifest destiny, rightousness, and wealth accumulation are core American values....those are more in the line of core vices.
jobs and living wage were PART of the "WE" providing for the "THEY" We ARE the they...........
global governance is not the purpose. Global governance will never be possible or acceptable to anybody.
I'm not surprised you didn't like it. Everybody liking it was not the point.
Be back later ;D
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 14, 2009, 11:02:41 AM
That "Guy" is full of crap. And FDR's bill of rights is nothing short of socialism. Not only that but he contridicts himself. "We" have to provide for those who have too little when "they" have a right to a decent job??? "...freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad." Here he is talking about implentation of regulations on a global scale, thus dissolving our sovernity through global governance. Somehow, allowing a foregin government to dictate how we run our country seems un-american to me.
That guy actually hit the nail on the head imo.
As far as FDR's bill of rights, it has nothing to do with socialism. It's about giving people the opportunity to succeed. It's saying that people have the right of upwards mobilitiy within society. There is absolutly nothing socialist about that. In fact it's quite the opposite.
With regards to dissolving soveriegnty, i think you may have misunderstood the statement. I see it as fighting against monopolies and unfair trade tariffs. For example, we can't sell beef in a lot of other countries because they place such high tariffs in American Beef. This means that our farmers aren't competitive and don't have access to foreign markets, yet we allow those same countries to have unfettered access to ours. This is about trade practices and treaties between governments, not a soveriegnty issue.
QuoteWith regards to dissolving soveriegnty, i think you may have misunderstood the statement. I see it as fighting against monopolies and unfair trade tariffs. For example, we can't sell beef in a lot of other countries because they place such high tariffs in American Beef. This means that our farmers aren't competitive and don't have access to foreign markets, yet we allow those same countries to have unfettered access to ours. This is about trade practices and treaties between governments, not a soveriegnty issue.
Exactly
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
FDR gave us "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."
Among these rights, he said, are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
What about the Rights of business owners to hire whom they want, based on whatever criteria they want, afterall, it is their business, not the gov'ts. Also, it is not the gov'ts place to tell business owners how much to pay their employees.
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
Who defines what is adequate when it comes to recreation?
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
The markets and those little things like supply and demand should deteremine at what price produce is sold for. Thats captialism.
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
Unfair competition??? Who gets to decide what is unfair? Whatever happened to developing a superior product and marketing it, or innovation?
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right of every family to a decent home.
That is fine so long as it doesn't imply ownership of a home. Simply put, you don' t have a right to own a home if you can't afford it. You may have to settle for just renting.
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
I agree, so long as the bill isn't put on others backs.
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
If they have a job, then they have this already. If they are too foolish to save for old age, sickness, whatever, that is on them. It is not the responsibilty of taxpayers to carry them. When mandated by the gov't to do so, such programs are nothing more than gov't sanctioned theft.
Quote from: pamsback on August 14, 2009, 09:04:23 AM
"The right to a good education."
Who gets to define what is "good education"? And how far do we take it?
We all have the same opportunity to succeed in America without the gov't saying that we must provide to those less fortunate. Our determination, hardwork, innovation determines what we make of ourselves. If a person is not motivated enough to better their station in life then they have no right to complain about it. I remember a little piece from a movie that I think applies,
"Young men, who don't know how to do any kind of business, or have no enegry or application should stay at home, where they can be cared for. They are not wanted here, and will only come to grief. But men of enterprise are practically sure of sucess."
A better title for that article should have been something like
"Reaching Our Socialist Goals in America thru Compromise",
instead of American Values.
Nowdays, there are many who want the USA to be like the other nations.
One can tell it just by reading this forum. But, the USA was formed not to
be like the other nations and that's the way it ought to be.
Under the Constitution the federal government had very few obligations. Among those they do have is to protect their citizens and to regulate commerce. While we may not agree on what that encompasses our founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances. The founding fathers took that into account. Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme court. If you don't like it there is a process to amend the constitution. Many things are not defined in the Constitution or are ambiguous. Some people say that is not what the founding fathers meant. To determine what they meant are you using your dictionary and ideas or are you using one that was in effect during their era. In fact even they did not agree and the Constitution is just a compromise among a wide variety of ideas. Many of them had slaves and that is just wrong and in violation of the whole life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thing. In fact many of our founding fathers were not American, which is just a technical play on words. Also, there is no national government that is truly democratic, socialist, communist, or anarchist (I think I covered the whole spectrum). I am just posing some of the many philosophical arguments and playing devils advocate in other cases. Maybe some of you will expand your knowledge about US history, Constitution, etc. I know I will because of the comments that will come due to my post.
David
David, you should note that slavery was legal even though you say
it is wrong. Back then, the income tax was never legal until about fifty (50) years
years after the slaves were freed in the north, the sixteenth (16th) Amendment
was passed to take your earnings from your work and labor (to distribute it elsewhere).
Of course, it appears that your future earnings have been mortgaged to distribute even
more than you are paying in. It's guys like Ted Kennedy who have taken credit for
"helping the poor" except it was with your money.
The USA had greater freedoms before the socialists began messing-up this
country and it's those greater freedoms that black folks deserve.
Quote from: redcliffsw on August 14, 2009, 07:36:23 PM
David, you should note that slavery was legal even though you say
it is wrong. Back then, the income tax was never legal until about fifty (50) years
years after the slaves were freed in the north, the sixteenth (16th) Amendment
was passed to take your earnings from your work and labor (to distribute it elsewhere).
Of course, it appears that your future earnings have been mortgaged to distribute even
more than you are paying in. It's guys like Ted Kennedy who have taken credit for
"helping the poor" except it was with your money.
The USA had greater freedoms before the socialists began messing-up this
country and it's those greater freedoms that black folks deserve.
Red I was not writing a book. Slavery was indeed legal then. I am aware when income taxes became legal. I also share what I would call my libertarian beliefs with you, Steve and Billy. I appreciate when you guys voice your opinion because I feel it is important and not one that gets a lot of airplay. While I believe in what our founding fathers did and set up in the Constitution the greatest document on earth. I will not cowtow to dead kings now matter how much I revere them. For me they gave me freedom to decide what is right for me. I personally do not support abortion or the death penalty. That comes to me by an even higher authority than the founding fathers and the same one they used to define our inalienable rights.
David
Billy I already had this debate.
Red, compromise is not a SOCIALIST agenda. It's what grown-ups do.
We had greater freedoms before political parties started USING them as currency. ALL political parties and all "special interests".
I have no use for the HARD right or the HARD left.
Pam do you think that the fact we are both centrists' comes from our age or the fact we have EK roots? Flintaqua you said you were a centrist and you are on the younger end of the spectrum. These are my words not Pam or Charles I will let them respond if they wish to do so.,
David
I've wondered about that myself David...it seems to be a slight pattern age wise........older people seem to fall hard one way or the other and a lot of the real young ones do too.
I have always had a rebellion against fundamental ANYthing....I've never been one to do somethin just because "that's the way we always did it" and growin up in the sticks which that neck of the woods IS even if you live in town lol is fertile ground for independant inclinations.
I am basically an independant centrist and that is because I believe power is a thing to be handled with kid gloves like the dynamite it is. Power is a force that can corrupt, discriminate, oppress and enslave and should NEVER be the sole property of any ONE side. If we learned ANYthing from our european ancestors it should have been THAT.
I believe there has to be balance...too far one way or the other and things get wonky and somebody gets screwed. Too far one way or the other breeds hate and discontent, opens the way for abuses and oppression.Too far one way or the other and a Force greater than us takes over and evens things out.
QuoteNowdays, there are many who want the USA to be like the other nations.
One can tell it just by reading this forum.
I'm real tired of all the "socialist" tags. That's bull*&^% left over from the "red commie" witch hunts. Not one person I've seen on here is what I would call a socialist. Some of us are more PROGRESSIVE and willing to change than some others of us but that is NOT a bad thing. SOME things DO need changin.
Like it or not we ALL pay income and about a zillion OTHER kinds of taxes. Like it or NOT the government gets to decide how to spend said taxes..alledgedly on things for the American people. If I have a choice between my tax dollars being spent to feed homeless people or a 1000 dollar a plate state dinner for fat cats..I'll choose homeless people every time. If I have a choice between my tax dollars buying healthcare for kids or old people or even THE people in general instead of 8 spankin new jets for the fat cats to fly off in I'm going to choose the medical care every time. Any number of a million OTHER choices between what to spend tax dollars on I'm goin to choose the ones who NEED it instead of the ones who have ACCESS to it every time. That doesn't make me a SOCIALIST...it makes me a rebel more than anything else I guess. I don't want to give the government any more money or power either ONE...they don't have brains enough to use what they already have WISELY.
I don't like your "status quo"......... the status quo sucks.
Quote from: dnalexander on August 14, 2009, 09:30:58 PM
Pam do you think that the fact we are both centrists' comes from our age or the fact we have EK roots? Flintaqua you said you were a centrist and you are on the younger end of the spectrum. These are my words not Pam or Charles I will let them respond if they wish to do so.,
David
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutly. In my centrist opinion (and that's centrist as applied to: liberal/conservative, anarchy/totalitarianism, libertarian/authoritarian) the Republic of the United States works best when the checks and balances are in effect, ie when the House and Senate are not both controlled by the same party, or when the President is one party, and one or both houses of Congress are of the other. It's when all three are controlled like they are know that scares me the most. Why?
The total lack of COMPROMISE!
The Declaration of Independence was a compromise. The Articles of Confederation was a compromise. Nearly every sentence of every article of the Constitution was a compromise. This country was not set up for any one faction or group to govern unrestricted, in fact the Founding Fathers tried their very best to protect this country from that very thing.
The problem I see occurring now (on the issues getting the most media attention from both sides) is that the party out of power is not trying to compromise, but rather trying to scare the living hell out of everyone and demonize everything the party in control is doing. They really aren't coming up with legislation to offer as a viable alternative to what is getting passed, and are not reaching out to the other side of the aisle to make any headway, just slinging ever increasing amounts of mud.
The media doesn't report much about issues where compromise occurs the way it should, and legislation that is better than what either side origionally came up with gets passed, in a non-partyline vote. An example is the recently passed Agricultural appropriations bill. Each party in each house took their time in sub-committee and committee and hamered out a very good bill, probably one of the most fair and balanced appropriation bills in a long time. And it passed on the floor of the Senate with a 3 to 1 margin with very few amendment battles to be turned into media circuses.
That is the way Congress should work all the time IMH(C)O.
Charles
Pam and Charles. Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing. I thought we had similar views on some things. Charles I too prefer a split in party between the house, senate, and president. I don't trust either party and I certainly don't like it when a single party controls all three.
David
Pam, this one's for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
The Declaration of Independence was not a compromise with socialism or the monarchy. We threw the Brithish out for a whole lot less than what the Fed's have become today. We've "compromised" away many things that this country and its people used to stand.
Why look to Washington DC ? Because some of you all want a nanny too?
Pam offered this: "If I have a choice between my tax dollars being spent to feed homeless people or a 1000 dollar a plate state dinner for fat cats..I'll choose homeless people every time." Well Pam, my choice is neither and I'll stand by that. Many of us have been choosing the lesser of the two (2) evils for a long time and it's time we recognize that we ought to fully reject them both.
Lo, Anmar....Monty Python was one of my favorites. Are you tryin to tell me the villagers are comin for me? Or that the "government" is fixin to throw me to them? LOL
QuoteI don't trust either party and I certainly don't like it when a single party controls all three.
I really believe that is the way MOST people think David...the far either side just hollers louder and whines more about not gettin what they want.
QuoteWell Pam, my choice is neither and I'll stand by that. Many of us have been choosing the lesser of the two (2) evils for a long time and it's time we recognize that we ought to fully reject them both.
Well guess what Red, MY choice is the same. I am a realist though NOT a lesser of two evils chooser. I almost ALways vote for a third party candidate if there is a viable one and people tell me I'm just throwin my vote away....no I'm not I'm makin my voice heard even if nobody listens........The only thing that is going to make the government turn loose of ANY power is total revolution and I don't see that happening in the forseeable future so like it or NOT we gotta work with what we got to keep it from goin any further and I am enough of an IDEAList to think we should spend government money where it will do some good instead of just making the fat cats fatter. And I stand by THAT.
By allowing gov't to expand on ANY program, not covered by the constitution, we are allowing them to expand their power. I don't mind helping people so long as the choice is mine, and not made for me. You want healthcare reform...why not allow doctors to take a deduction on the total costs of treating "poor" folks who cannot afford to pay? Instead of forcing folks that make 250k to pay more in taxes.
Dude I wasn't advocating for EXPANDing anything! This has nothing to do with the healthcare fiasco going on right now. I have serious doubts about THAT ever working or being any better than the way things are NOW. The government having their "redtape" "do it in triplicate" fingers in it never helps ANYthing work better...it usually just gums up the works even worse.
I'm talking about the ways they spend the money they ALready take not how to spend some more! The deduction thing is a good idea.
GArage sale down by the mill is callin my name ;D y'all have a good day!
Pam, my post wasn't aimed aimed at you specifically and I just used the healthcare thing as an example. Getting back to the thread topic...I don't see an expansion of gov't as an American Value. In fact, just the opposite. The Right, and Conservatives, want the gov't to uphold the Constitution, while the Left wants the Constitution to basically be shredded. Their can be no more compromise on this. Conservatives have "compromised" on this issue in the past, usually to our peril. Just look at 2nd admendment issues, we now have less freedom than when we started. Or look at the 1st admendment, it is now a "hate crime" if someone murders someone while calling them a fag or whatever. Hell, it is damn near a crime for conservative protesters to speak out against what the gov't is doing. We had compromise during the Bush adminstration that gave us the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, the Right tried to "compromise" with democrats on healthcare reform and end up being villianized. Well, I for one am sick of compromising. I will stand on my principles, values, and the American Consitituion and the left can kiss my Right ass.
Amen to that, Billy!
Expansion of government ISN'T an AMerican "value", I didn't say it was. It's a HUMAN failing.
If anything the stiff-necked my way or the highway crap that always causes the PROBlems is a core American value! That doesn't make it a good one though. There is ALways room for compromise among intelligent honest people.
As for the hate crime thing...it's a hate crime if you kill somebody BECAUSE they are a "fag" not just if you call them that while doing it. Which killin somebody just because they are gay or straight, white, brown, yellow, red or black, male or female or purple or whatever IS a worse crime than plain murder which is a terrible crime in itself.
The BUSH bunch is resposible for the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping and I believe they are what you all would consider good ol conservatives. About half THOSE gomers should have been impeached.
I'll stand on my CENTRIST (since I now have a name for it, thanks David) independant, there's enough pie for EVERYbody principles and values and the Constitution, and BOTH extremes can kiss MY ass bud.
ANd now I'm gonna go enjoy my weekend with nary a thought given to politics or whether or not anybody likes what I think! Yall have a good one too ;D
(I came back and changed a few words to make my meaning clearer and a wee bit less demeaning to anybody who might take offense to the word used for gay. I left the one because I think it helped make the point, now I'm gone for good for the weekend anyway ;D)
Diane I could just hug you and I ain't much of a hugger! Everything you just said is SO right on.
Diane, I am curious...what part about "choice" didn't you read in many of the posts on here? How many times has it been stated that charity should be a choice and not forced on people??? If you want to contribute to charities, then more power to you...you don't become a "liberal socialist" until you start forcing others to do so. Which is exactly what happens when gov't takes more and more taxes to fund public welfare programs. When the income tax began it wasn't supposed to get over 1%, what is it today??? As far as workplace standards of safety...yes, we need to have them, no one is arguing against that. However, when the gov't puts policies into place like the Affimative Action laws and tells private businesses that they have to hire a certain percentage of blacks, mexicans, women or whatever not based on qualifications but in the interest of fairness, that is when I have a problem with it. Unions may have come about for a good reason, but those reasons have been preverted. Now, they are nothing more than organized thuggery, forcing employers to pay higher wages for less work and less quality. I don't see a whole lot of unions protesting the "Card Check" legislation. You seem to be in favor of more governmental control over private business by stating conditions that existed during the industrial revolution and the early years of American industry. Should we go to full blown governmental control over these businesses? Show me one country that has as much gov't control as possible over business and is still a leading superpower in the world.
It is not that I have a problem with being told what to do, afterall, we are a civil society, and in order to sustain that society we need laws. It is when those laws begin to infringe upon constitutional rights that I have a problem. Espcially when said laws are based on a flawed concept like global warming. Or when those laws subvert the rights of the individual for the "greater good".
Socialism is real in this country and there are those who depend on the Feds'
to implement and to enforce their own "good works" agenda with other
peoples' money. Greed? Yes, socialism is greed.
The gov't does not protect us from the elitists' agenda for this country and the
world, instead it joins and cooperates with them as most gov't people are about like 'em.
Some call themselves "moderates" and they support the socialist agenda. Others even
use the label of Democrat or Republican to place their hope and livlelihood in the Fed's.
Our founding fathers opposed socialism and we should do no less.
I have a question for those of you who say you are moderates, centerists. Do you know that the founders wanted us as close to anarchy as possible? When our government was formed the left v. right looked something like this
left (total gov't control)---------------middle---------------right--anarchy
through so called compromise that original blueprint has been preverted to something like this
left---middle--right------------------anarchy
So to say that you are a centerist is somewhat faulty. If you think that I am wrong here, then go read the founders letters, the original papers. And ask yourself, if the founders were centerists why would they want to give more power to state governments and less power to the Federal gov't?
Billy back then I would've been so far to the right you wouldn't even have been able to find me. This ain't then this is now. It pisses me off to pay taxes, I don't agree with at least 70% of what the government does.....but there is this thing called the LAW and as a "good little citizen" and a "patriotic american" I am supposed to "do my part"
Nowhere in ANY thing I have ever said will you find "GOVERNMENT knows best it should be BIGGER and gimmee gimmee gimmee. I have said at LEAST 15 or 20 times that they should throw ALL the bums out and start over. The ONLY place to do that is in the middle because NEITHER major party wants to get OFF the government tit and you are foolin yourself if you think they do.
I support BETTER management of the money they ALREADY take NOT takin more or gettin bigger. IF they are goin to take my tax dollars I want them spent to BETTER the situations of people who have nothing or very little instead of financing "summits" to tropical islands and tradin in the jet for a more luxurious model.
THAT is MY middle....smaller government but since it ain't gonna happen anytime soon......get your shit together and start spendin the PEOPLES money where it will do some good......on the PEOPLE.
ALL the rest of what you said to DIane.......takes us back to what I started this with GREED....GREED turned the unions into monsters...GREED turned the government into a monster....GREED is why anybody who wants to share gets called a "socialist" GREED is what runs things because deep down we are ALL greedy little children who think we need to have a bigger piece of pie than the OTHER kids do and until we change THAT nothin else is goin to change.
Now I said I was done for the weekend but like the idiot I am I just HAD to see what yall were sayin because this interests me...BUT I have made what I think as clear as it's ever gonna get and I don't want to get involved in the same shit different day blah blah that just goes in circles and people end up mad. That isn't what this was about...it was about how greed has perverted things. Y'all are where you are so to speak and I am where I am goin to stay so to speak and I hope we can discuss other issues and do it like we have here but beatin a dead horse does no good.
A debate helps me weed out MY stand more than anything. Other peoples points of view ALWAYS do that for me. It helps me see what is important enough to me that I'll stand no matter what and it helps me see what really ain't that big a deal to me. I'm not tryin to change anybody elses opinion I'm cementin my own.
So yall have a nice Sunday and enjoy it without worryin what the government is doin today.
The revolution WAS anarchy...so is ANY war.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on August 16, 2009, 08:02:16 AM
I have a question for those of you who say you are moderates, centerists. Do you know that the founders wanted us as close to anarchy as possible? When our government was formed the left v. right looked something like this
left (total gov't control)---------------middle---------------right--anarchy
through so called compromise that original blueprint has been preverted to something like this
left---middle--right------------------anarchy
So to say that you are a centerist is somewhat faulty. If you think that I am wrong here, then go read the founders letters, the original papers. And ask yourself, if the founders were centerists why would they want to give more power to state governments and less power to the Federal gov't?
A discussion of politics is not complete without the discussion of anarchy. Like the terms Socialist, Democratic, Left, Right, Conservative, and Liberal the terms are disputed not only by those with an opposing view, but by those that hold the proponent view. Was Billy saying that the founding fathers were closer to socialists and anarchists than they are to our own liberal Democratic party. I doubt it, but I will let him speak for himself. Either way if this makes anyone do a little reading on our founding fathers and\or anarchy it will have been worth all this typing.
David
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
The basic tenet of anarchism is that hierarchical authority -- be it state, church, patriarchy or economic elite -- is not only unnecessary, but is inherently detrimental to the maximization of human potential. Anarchists generally believe that human beings are capable of managing their own affairs on the basis of creativity, cooperation, and mutual respect. It is believed that power is inherently corrupting, and that authorities are inevitably more concerned with self-perpetuation and increasing their own power than they are with doing what is best for their constituents. Anarchists generally maintain that ethics are a personal matter, and should be based upon concern for others and the wellbeing of society, rather than upon laws imposed by a legal or religious authority (including revered laws such as the U.S. Constitution). Most anarchist philosophies hold that individuals are responsibile for their own behavior. Paternalistic authorities foster a dehumanized mindset in which people expect elites to make decisions for them and meet their needs, rather than thinking and acting for themselves. When an authority arrogates to itself the right to overrule the most fundamental personal moral decisions, such as what is worth killing or dying for (as in military conscription or abortion), human freedom is immeasurably diminished.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html
Are anarchists socialists?Yes.All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secAcon.html
.
Billy, I agree with you to a certain degree, although i think the founders wanted government to be more local. The smaller the government, the more rights it had. I think every single person on this forum who DOESN'T identify themselves as a right wing conservative has already advocated something along the lines of "get rid of everything and start something much smaller"
There are some ideas that are just natural.
During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers. We here present some of the best and most widely read of these. They contain warnings of dangers from tyranny that weaknesses in the proposed Constitution did not adequately provide against, and while some of those weaknesses were corrected by adoption of the Bill of Rights, others remained, and some of these dangers are now coming to pass.
The most important way to read the pro- and anti-federalist papers is as a debate on how the provisions of the Constitution would be interpreted, or "constructed". Those opposing ratification, or at least raising doubts about it, were not so much arguing against the ratification of some kind of federal constitution, as against expansive construction of provisions delegating powers to the national government, and the responses from pro-ratificationists largely consisted of assurances that the delegations of power would be constructed strictly and narrowly. Therefore, to win the support of their opponents, the pro-ratificationists essentially had to consent to a doctrine of interpretation that must be considered a part of the Constitution, and that therefore must be the basis for interpretation today. This doctrine can be summed up by saying, "if a construction would have been objectionable to the anti-federalists, it should be initially presumed unconstitutional".
Ratification Debates Of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers (The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp
Anti-Federalist Papers
http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm
Elliot's Records of Debates in State Legislatures http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html
Above links are from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/history.html
David (Sorry I did my typing for the day so you all will have to do the reading yourself. This is my response to those that keep saying the founding fathers all agreed and that we were not formed by a compromise) Federalist or Anti-Federalist is just about as far apart on agreeing as you can get.)
he Centrist Party positions center on administration and leadership principles as foundations for elected representatives in the following areas: Economy; Education; Energy; Environment; Healthcare; Political Reform; Security. Policy direction is need dependent and some positions will be further developed as needs are better understood. The basic premise is simple: Common sense and reason applied to the common good and national needs.
Economy
Secure - stable - sustainable - well reasoned economics: Free markets through market transparency, with market regulation limited to the common good of the people that enables equality of opportunity and fair competition, based on performance and productivity. Checks and balances to ensure that competition and innovation are not squeezed out of the American Dream. Protect and allow for potential to be achieved by the virtue of individual will, rather than subsidy without performance agreements or due consideration to cost/benefit relationships. Balance between boutique economic systems and national/international systems.
Read More...
Education
Life Skills - Innovation - Performance: Performance based systems to motivate the achievement of higher potentials. We need to begin dealing with the multitude of factors that impede our children's education and transition out of the industrial model of education to foster innovation, critical thinking and problem solving.
Read More...
Energy
Clean - Safe - Sustainable: Economically sound systems and rapid transition strategies based on needs and available technology to achieve energy independence and a healthier future. Enabling transitions to protect the health of the environment and provide sufficient energy is key to a stable healthy transition. Carbon Sequestration, alternative energy systems and reduced energy consumption and efficiency are critical in this endeavor.
Read More...
Environment
Clean - Safe - Sustainable: Policy based on realistic assessment of available resources and common sense usage of those resources regarding system capacity and regulation considerate of these ends. Any lack of consideration in this area directly affects our economy and security. Rapidly addressing needed policy directives will yield more affordable solutions and a healthier future. Carbon Sequestration, alternative energy systems and reduced energy consumption and efficiency are critical in this endeavor.
Read More...
Healthcare
Health - Food - Lifestyle: Real health-care is promoting and increasing health, not concentrating on disease-care after the fact. A distinct lack of effort in empowering the FDA to perform its mission has allowed a general degradation of the health of our food system. This in turn requires a greater emphasis on the pharmaceutical industry to cure our ills. The thinking is obviously backwards. We need to reduce or eliminate special interest influence and empower the FDA to achieve its mission. Unhealthy food and lifestyles are a major cause of increased cost of healthcare. Work towards performance based healthcare systems with client choice and simplified tiered assessment methods.
Read More...
Political Reform
Integrity - Honor - Humility: Get special interests out of the electoral and legislative process. We need leadership that is strong enough to stand and fight for what needs to be done, not what is popular with the electorate. The people will need to lead on these issues. Campaign reform is only the beginning. We need to address the fundamental basis of the erosion of the system, including supreme court decisions that may be at odds with reason and common sense.
Read More...
Security
To be a beacon of freedom and democracy we must practice and enforce the protection of these ideals at home and abroad. Enhance state department communications capacity. Recognize actions have short and long term consequences. Support and empower the military rather than outsource. Commit to conflict only when justified by fact of established threat, required action, not agenda. We should not be afraid to draw the sword, nor to sheath it. Once committed, attend to pentagon protocols for success in-theater including manpower and equipment.
Read More...
http://www.uscentrist.org/platform/positions/
I agree, Thanks David.
I've never heard of this Centrist Party until now. Nothing new there.
It's the "same ole soup, just warmed over".
The Centrist is just another liberal and leftist group, not "center".
Billy recognizes this so-called "centrist" movement for what it really is.
By definition a centrist is a moderate between the left and right. I am surprised that you have never heard of the Centrist Party. But then I posted it so people would be better informed and you now know more than you did before. Maybe you can back up your opinions on what a centrist is and we can all learn something new. I am not trying to get you to join the Centrist Party and in fact I am not a member and would not join it.
David
David,
I think I just figured "it" out.
There's "right wing, and "ultra right wing" The true "center" is in between these two conservative views. Everything to the left of "right wing" is therefore "leftist or liberal".
Charles
P.S. Which emoticon is for "dripping with sarcasm"?
I was thinking of writing a post along the lines of
"Dave, half the people on these forums just saw
- Economy
Socialist
- Foreign Policy
Socialist
- Health Care
-Socialist"
I waited, studied for a midterm i have tomorrow, and checked in to see i had missed my opportunity by waiting. Red beat me to it, except she's not joking.
You've made some good informative posts David :) Thanks!
That's what we need Info.
Charles, the emoticon I like for "dripping with sarcasm" is the little smiley face that has his middle finger sticking up in the air. I would post an example but I don't think that is appropriate for this forum. It's funny, just not appropriate. :laugh: :angel:
David
All Hail the David the Wise! :angel: ;D
Diane, YES, I think that paying for public schools SHOULD be mandatory for parents and voluntary for folks without children. As far as your Fire Dept. goes, I think that if the folks that live in your county want the F.D to cover as much as it does then they should pay for it. If they don't then the fire dept should redue its services. The reason locals don't voluntarily donate is because they have gotten used to the idea of gov't paying for everything. How is forcing people to "donate" through taxes not empowering gov't?
As far as businesses reverting back, thats not going to happen. Businesses and the people who own them are in it to make a profit. You are not going to make said profits if you have conditions that no one wants to work in. Also, nowadays, people are smart enough to see a need for a standandization of some things, like the thread on firehoses.
To suggest that the Constitution can be changed to "fit the times" subverts the document entirely. What use is there in having a document that limits the power of the gov't, if we give that gov't the power to change that document?? After the signing of the Constitution, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street, "What have you given us?", Franklin responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
David, your post on the centerist position was informing. However, there are a few things that I disagree with...
The stance on enegry and the enviroment both mention carbon sequestration, which to my understanding, is based on the theory that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming. The problem I have with this is that global warming theory is incorrect and based on puesdo-science. They also call for transition to be based on need, then they say that need should be reduced.
On healthcare, I want the gov't no where near my healthcare or food. I want my doctor to fix whatever is wrong with me, and offer his opinion on preventive care if I ask for it. What I don't want is gov't saying "these foods are unhealthy, so to offset the cost of future care needed because of these foods, we are gonna tax you more it" i.e. a sugar tax. Which in essence, is nothing more than a Fat tax.
On Security, they say that we should not only defend, but enforce democracy at home and ABROAD, then they turn around and say that we should not commit to conflict to further an agenda. Their stance is at odds with itself.
Anyway, thats all for now, have to get ready for work.
QuoteAs far as your Fire Dept. goes, I think that if the folks that live in your county want the F.D to cover as much as it does then they should pay for it.
Here the volunteer fire department has a 35 dollar a year membership fee for the area they cover....you don't have to join but if you don't and they have to put out a fire at your place they charge you for it and it costs a hell of a lot more than $35!
QuoteAs far as businesses reverting back, thats not going to happen.
Some will because it's the nature of the beast. As for nobody workin for them..there will ALways be people desperate enough for a job that they will.
QuoteTo suggest that the Constitution can be changed to "fit the times" subverts the document entirely
""The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adams"
Billy that is the platform of the Centrist Party and not all centrist; a short but important point. Personally I don't have much use for political parties. If I were passing out "class homework assignments" I would suggest people research what our founding fathers thought about political parties. (Hint: Washington found political parties to be a threat).
"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
George Washington
(Washington's Farewell Address)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
David
p.s. I was going to try and post a list of all the political parties in the US. That is a long list.
In the discussion of various political parties, what their platforms are and in reading various posts........Does anybody besides me find that their hot button issues place them in various parties at various times? Which brings me to the point of this post.......which is Labels, why do we need them and why do we let ourselves be pigeonholed? Why do people TRY to pigeonhole others? Why do you have to belong to ONE political party and why are you supposed to support their platform even if you DON'T agree with it( which is anarchy I know Lol) In thinking about MY various thoughts on issues I have found some are core issues of republicans, some are core issues of democrats, some are core issues or independants, libertarians, centrists, and even ANARCHISTS! I have issues that are core to the green party.
I had already decided to change my affiliation from democrat because I'm NOT really a democrat.....but what does somebody like me REGISTER as with a clear conscience? I have always voted for whoever I thought was best for the job no matter what party they belonged to which I know canceled my votes but I voted with my conscience so.......ANy thoughts?
Pam I say vote for the best candidate. While we are posing questions people struggle with I will add one that I think a lot of people have. A few posts back I gave my opinion of labels on my what is anarchy post.
Basically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President. I think it may be a long time before any third party candidate will be elected as Pres. So do you vote for the third party candidate and essentially "waste" your vote? Or do you choose the lesser of two evils and vote for one of two major party candidates that actually have a chance of being elected. I think this dilemma lessens as you progress to state, county, local government where a 3rd party can get elected. I know many Centrist and Libertarians struggle with this issue. Some Anarchists would say just scrap the whole system and go to a true democracy one person one vote on all issues of governance. (No representatives, senators, electoral college).
My personal opinion is you vote for what is best for you and not anyone else. We each have to decide what is in our best interest and that only you can decide.
David
QuoteBasically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President.
That is true. There have been some third party candidates who would've done a MUCH better job but they can't get the support or the votes to win which is a sad statement.
I vote for the one I think is the best person even tho I'm essentially wasting my vote beCAUSE I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Really that is what it is going to take to loosen the stranglehold of the two major parties is EVERYbody refusing to vote for people JUST because the Party endorses them whether they suck or not.
I'm going to have to do some research to see if that has EVER happened or not........
Quote from: pamsback on August 17, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
QuoteBasically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President.
That is true. There have been some third party candidates who would've done a MUCH better job but they can't get the support or the votes to win which is a sad statement.
I vote for the one I think is the best person even tho I'm essentially wasting my vote beCAUSE I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Really that is what it is going to take to loosen the stranglehold of the two major parties is EVERYbody refusing to vote for people JUST because the Party endorses them whether they suck or not.
I'm going to have to do some research to see if that has EVER happened or not........
But right now I gotta go hang my laundry out LOL
Well, duh Pam.........Abraham Lincoln was a "third party candidate" because the republican party started in the 1850's like 1856.
Diane, we already have ways to admend the Constitution, 2 actually. The problem with "tweaking" as with anything this gov't does, is if you give them and inch they will take 100 miles and built a superhighway. For example, which of the first 10 admendments would you like to see "tweaked"???
Quote from: pamsback on August 17, 2009, 09:12:39 AM
In the discussion of various political parties, what their platforms are and in reading various posts........Does anybody besides me find that their hot button issues place them in various parties at various times? Which brings me to the point of this post.......which is Labels, why do we need them and why do we let ourselves be pigeonholed? Why do people TRY to pigeonhole others? Why do you have to belong to ONE political party and why are you supposed to support their platform even if you DON'T agree with it( which is anarchy I know Lol) In thinking about MY various thoughts on issues I have found some are core issues of republicans, some are core issues of democrats, some are core issues or independants, libertarians, centrists, and even ANARCHISTS! I have issues that are core to the green party.
I had already decided to change my affiliation from democrat because I'm NOT really a democrat.....but what does somebody like me REGISTER as with a clear conscience? I have always voted for whoever I thought was best for the job no matter what party they belonged to which I know canceled my votes but I voted with my conscience so.......ANy thoughts?
You just register as an Independent...Some of the NICEST people I know are registered as such! lol
QuoteYou just register as an Independent...Some of the NICEST people I know are registered as such! lol
;D I know a couple myself Lol