[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is where I think you're mistaken in your caricature of what Conservatism is. There is no new idea under the sun. Conservatives generally oppose the antiquated, failed ideals of centuries gone by in favor of the comparatively new principles the US was founded on. They feel strongly that these are the differences that have manifest in the most successful system of governance ever developed by almost any metric you can cite; in less than 250 years. Ideas that propose change must be qualified in terms of historical merit; if they have dismally little going for them, it is only sensible to oppose them. What you call Conservative, I call common sense.

What you call Progressive, I call regressive, mostly failed ideology from yesteryear. You just think it's all new because you're new to the game.

As usual, well-said, and 100% dead on.

[besson3c]

So, policies relating to gay rights, health care, and economic policies for our modern day economy are not new? They are new to us, ebuddy, and whatever aspects to these bear resemblances to the past are also shaded by the many changes to our economy over the years: the rise of the big banks, globalization, modern day accounting practices, the rise of lobbyists, etc. The magnitude of this collapse was also quite new to us, we haven't had something like this since the great depression where the economy was a much different animal.

I'd say that gay rights is not terribly new as this is similar to woman's rights and rights of blacks in some fundamental ways, but Republicans are of course want nothing to do with making amends here.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And bessonc proves ebuddy's point perfectly with more platitudes, complex issues reduced to mere bumpersticker slogans and the typical Democrat practice of taking credit for things they had very little to do with, or that their *actual* record on is worse than Republicans'. (Like civil rights, for example.)

[besson3c]

I'm not giving Democrats credit to anything Crash, stop being reactionary. I'm simply opposing the notion that there is "no new idea under the sun".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is where I think you're mistaken in your caricature of what Conservatism is. There is no new idea under the sun. Conservatives generally oppose the antiquated, failed ideals of centuries gone by in favor of the comparatively new principles the US was founded on. They feel strongly that these are the differences that have manifest in the most successful system of governance ever developed by almost any metric you can cite; in less than 250 years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's also odd that Republicans seem more likely to want to insist to other people that the US/the old ways are the best, even when debatable and not terribly relevant either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, policies relating to gay rights, health care, and economic policies for our modern day economy are not new?

Gay rights is a meaningless political buzz phrase IMO. Of course gays have all the rights afforded the rest of us. There is no novel ideal for addressing healthcare. I mean, you could cite technological advancement such as getting everyone's medical records on line I suppose, but of course there is nothing new about wanting to exploit whatever is available to increase efficiency and there's even less to suggest this notion is somehow at odds with conservatism. What new economic policies are being adopted? I mean you just throw these around as if there's supposed to be some obvious new and profound "change" behind them. This way you can just say Republicans are being slow-change and obstructionist, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats are just as quick to adopt obstructionist practices resulting in slow-change. Pick your battles right?

They are new to us, ebuddy

So... an Australian jumps off a cliff with nothing on and dies, we might be able to jump off the same cliff with nothing on and live?

whatever aspects to these bear resemblances to the past are also shaded by the many changes to our economy over the years: the rise of the big banks, globalization, modern day accounting practices, the rise of lobbyists, etc. The magnitude of this collapse was also quite new to us, we haven't had something like this since the great depression where the economy was a much different animal.

Eventual, dominant holders of resource and the influence of special interests are new? I disagree. I submit everything we know from the dawn of mankind. Consider the generally accepted causes of the great depression for example. How do they differ so much from the causes of our economic crisis today? I think you'll find that in fact our financial behaviors today are actually quite similar. Worse, we're using the same principles to address the symptoms of bad financial behaviors. Interestingly, you and I aren't worlds apart in our concern for big banks, globalization, etc, etc..., but we disagree on who the fix agent is, what needs to be fixed, why, and how? Why would someone like me often be at odds with someone like you and why do I not accept your caricature of Conservatives? Because the proposed fixes you call "Progressive" aren't new.

The "modern day accounting practices" point makes no sense to me. Since when have Conservatives been hesitant to exploit new technologies for gain?

I'd say that gay rights is not terribly new as this is similar to woman's rights and rights of blacks in some fundamental ways, but Republicans are of course want nothing to do with making amends here.

Are you even remotely familiar with the history of Civil Rights in this country besson? I just don't think you've come to grips with the fact that most simply do not afford homosexuality the same consideration as race or gender. I mean, it's 2010 after all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Consider the generally accepted causes of the great depression for example. How do they differ so much from the causes of our economic crisis today? I think you'll find that in fact our financial behaviors today are actually quite similar. Worse, we're using the same principles to address the symptoms of bad financial behaviors.

And yet you think your system of governance is the best on the planet. How bizarre.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's also odd that Republicans seem more likely to want to insist to other people that the US/the old ways are the best, even when debatable and not terribly relevant either.

That's not what I said. I said the US is a comparatively new ideal. Why should I accept the premise that the US/old (new) ways aren't the best?

Irrelevant? I disagree. The question of governing philosophies becomes extremely relevant when you're assuming one is flawed and in need of fundamental transformation using old-world solutions that have done little more than exacerbate ills.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Gay rights is a meaningless political buzz phrase IMO. Of course gays have all the rights afforded the rest of us.

Except they can't marry or serve openly in the military.

There is no novel ideal for addressing healthcare. I mean, you could cite technological advancement such as getting everyone's medical records on line I suppose, but of course there is nothing new about wanting to exploit whatever is available to increase efficiency and there's even less to suggest this notion is somehow at odds with conservatism. What new economic policies are being adopted? I mean you just throw these around as if there's supposed to be some obvious new and profound "change" behind them. This way you can just say Republicans are being slow-change and obstructionist, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats are just as quick to adopt obstructionist practices resulting in slow-change. Pick your battles right?

Whatever new ideas there are for health care in this country seem to be squashed by those that want to keep things the way they are. A public option was new for this country, as was medicare buy in, but all of this was squashed by oversized rhetoric about socialism, large government, blabbity blah blah. I mean, we never even got to the point where we could discuss openly the merits of anything other than what we have without getting bogged down by philosophical obstructionist rhetoric.

As far as new economic circumstances, short selling, sub prime interest rates, and bailouts of this magnitude are all pretty new things, no? You don't really mean to say that the way our economic is structured has not changed over the years, do you? That globalization doesn't exist? All of these changes in our economy merit proper regulation and oversight so that we do not turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse.

There is a reason why there is the root "conserve" in the word "Conservative" and why you yourself said basically that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem is, it *is* broke. A healthy debate about what we should do to fix things is a great thing to have, but let's call a spade a spade, things *are* broke and it makes no sense to leave everything the way it is.

It is very frustrating to me that nothing is getting done in this country. Republicans are blocking everything and anything ranging from votes on big issues to appointments of stupid relatively unimportant political positions. Many are not interested in getting stuff done, they are interested in fighting to keep things the way they are. Democrats, on the other hand, seem intent on rolling over and playing dead and looking for excuses for not getting things done.

Both parties have failed us ebuddy, there is little sense in defending either of them. However, that being said, while you might say that the Democrats are not so much a party of change, the Republicans seem even more heavily invested in preventing change.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And yet you think your system of governance is the best on the planet. How bizarre.

Yes, of course our worst elements are generally regarded as Europeanization. Not as bizarre as you might think.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's not what I said. I said the US is a comparatively new ideal. Why should I accept the premise that the US/old (new) ways aren't the best?

Irrelevant? I disagree. The question of governing philosophies becomes extremely relevant when you're assuming one is flawed and in need of fundamental transformation using old-world solutions that have done little more than exacerbate ills.

Asserting that the US is the best is both arrogant and debatable. Firstly, it depends on what is being measured and how it is being measured, what you value. It is arrogant because politicians carry on this rhetoric that many people seem to buy into that implies that America is the only successful free market democracy in the world. I get it, America was a very big success, but finding a modern day successful free market democracy is really not all that terribly difficult anymore. Wrapping one's self in the American flag implies to me that the belief is that there is nothing to be learned from other countries. I detest this sort of mentality.

I detest it because even though there are specific areas I would agree with you on, we spend way too much time patting ourselves on the back and less time in trying to improve what we have. What we have is imperfect in just about every conceivable way.

As far as what we stand to learn, Americans as a whole have serious health problems, debt problems, health care that is far too expensive, an economic system that seems to permit fraud and abuse, a questionable foreign policy depending on which relations and tactics you look at and when you look at them, gun related deaths (including violence in schools), a failing education system, a lacking energy strategy, etc. Some of these things have most definitely been shaped by our governance over the years - Republican and Democrat administrations.

There are countries that arguably do some of these things better than us. In some areas this is debatable, in others not-so-much (our Math and Science education possibly being a good example). The Canadian banks were far less affected by the global economic collapse, another example.

If you want to call what some other countries have done or are doing "old world solutions", go right ahead, but this is simply a silly label. It is a very cynical attitude to assume that this is the best we can do for ourselves as a nation. I'm not suggesting that we allocate new resources at solving these problems, but there seems to be a shortage of discussion the best ways to use our existing resources to improve upon some of these problems. This is unacceptable to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, of course our worst elements are generally regarded as Europeanization. Not as bizarre as you might think.

Arrogance exhibit A, kids!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, of course our worst elements are generally regarded as Europeanization. Not as bizarre as you might think.

Really? Because I know of quite a few European countries which haven't been affected by the credit crunch at all (and certainly haven't been running up trillion-dollar deficits). Perhaps you need a bit more "Europeanization".

I don't understand you "patriot" types. Perhaps you have a blinkered view because you haven't seen much of the world. Fact is, the US is just as crappy as the UK or Italy or Spain or Australia or New Zealand. Just in a different way. Overall no better or no worse. Time for you people to bring yourselves back to reality before you have to run up another few trillion in debt propping up your delusions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Really? Because I know of quite a few European countries which haven't been affected by the credit crunch at all (and certainly haven't been running up trillion-dollar deficits). Perhaps you need a bit more "Europeanization".

The Canadian banks did not implode during the credit crunch either, and the US is Canada's biggest trading partner!

Your question about whether these patriot types have seen the rest of the world is interesting too. It pisses me off when Americans crap all over Canada's health care system based on some American right wing opinion piece when if they actually talked to enough Canadians they'd perhaps have a difference sense of the situation (according to the Wikipedia, the vast majority of Canadians are content with their health care).

Why do many Americans really believe that they have to be the "best" at everything, anyway?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do many Americans really believe that they have to be the "best" at everything, anyway?

Inferiority complex. Combine that with the brainwashing at every verse end and there ya go.

(And before anyone whines like a baby, I take issue with the patriotic types in my own country too. Idiots, the lot of them.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Inferiority complex. Combine that with the brainwashing at every verse end and there ya go.

(And before anyone whines like a baby, I take issue with the patriotic types in my own country too. Idiots, the lot of them.)

I guess so...

America is great, don't get me wrong, but it is weird how some Americans need to constantly remind themselves and others of this. It's about as strange as believing that our free market democracy is so incredibly powerful that it can provide the backbone to this entire country, yet we should be terrified about a relatively modest change in policy rendering this country's free market so fragile that it can be crushed before we can all blink, and that when we open our eyes again we will all be living in a socialist nation living off of government cheese.

[besson3c]

Where did government cheese come from anyway? Was Matt Foley the dude that coined this phrase?

[ebuddy]

To Doofy: please provide a short list of the European countries not affected by the credit crunch at all. Thanks.

You used to warn Americans in this forum against adopting European folly. I miss the ol' practical Doofy. Instead, we're left with the zealous nationalist, patriot-Doofy, crusader for all that is just and right across the pond.

To Besson: I'm glad that you and Doofy were able to find solidarity, but you both missed the entire context of my post. I'm not talking about what the US has become and in fact you may recall that I said "since the early 1900's". I'm talking about the ideal of the US, the founding governing principle that is comparatively new. When we talk about "conservatives" in context of the US, we're talking about defending a comparatively new principle against old-world principles from centuries gone by. You were apparently able to address zero of the substantive points I've made so you quickly resorted to picking apart what you naturally deem "nationalist" rhetoric because that's what you feel comfortable addressing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Doofy: please provide a short list of the European countries not affected by the credit crunch at all. Thanks.

Try the ones which still work on old world principles.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You used to warn Americans in this forum against adopting European folly. I miss the ol' practical Doofy. Instead, we're left with the zealous nationalist, patriot-Doofy, crusader for all that is just and right across the pond.

No, what you've got these days is an internationalist Doof who doesn't align himself with any country and doesn't mind pointing out the folly of the US.
To me, you look like a socialist. What with your enjoying paying taxes and all that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where did government cheese come from anyway? Was Matt Foley the dude that coined this phrase?

In the days before the federal Welfare program, the federal government provided assistance in kind: surplus cheese, peanut butter, powdered milk and eggs... In 1966 my dad's union went on strike for an extended period (and won their point) and we were on this sort of "relief" for something like 6 months. The cheese was good, the peanut butter (unadulterated, of course) was primo, but I still can't stand powdered milk. If the term "government cheese" isn't somehow related to the pre-Welfare relief program, I'll be surprised.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Doofy: please provide a short list of the European countries not affected by the credit crunch at all. Thanks.

Try the ones which still work on old world principles.

Funny how "taking care of internal issues first" has a way of making a country less part of the madding crowd that's rolling downhill all in the same handbasket.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You used to warn Americans in this forum against adopting European folly. I miss the ol' practical Doofy. Instead, we're left with the zealous nationalist, patriot-Doofy, crusader for all that is just and right across the pond.

No, what you've got these days is an internationalist Doof who doesn't align himself with any country and doesn't mind pointing out the folly of the US.
To me, you look like a socialist. What with your enjoying paying taxes and all that.

As a self-considered US patriot, I have to agree with Doofy that we have plenty of folly to point and laugh at over here. Not that I think this is in any way "OK," by any means. Just that if I don't see and acknowledge it, I can't do anything to reduce or repair it. "The first step is acknowledging you have a problem," and all that. If we were a tad more attentive to fixing causes of domestic problems, and a tad more attentive to finding and addressing the causes of international problems that affect us (read "most of 'em"), we'd be more successful. That would, however, require Congress to collectively look a bit past the next election cycle. As in terms of decades, not weeks. Fat chance they'll do that spontaneously, so pesky people like me, who have some sort of standing with our elected officials (letters and emails on a fairly regular basis, all sensible and logically written, etc.) have to keep making the point that "it's why they use drugs" or "who is funding these people that keep getting folks to blow themselves up" and so on. Otherwise our politicians don't see a need to do much more than fundraise so they can get reelected. On both sides of the aisle.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't understand you "patriot" types. Perhaps you have a blinkered view because you haven't seen much of the world. Fact is, the US is just as crappy as the UK or Italy or Spain or Australia or New Zealand. Just in a different way. Overall no better or no worse. Time for you people to bring yourselves back to reality before you have to run up another few trillion in debt propping up your delusions.

I've lived her my whole life and I don't understand them (the "patriot" types) either. This whole notion that the US is unique/special/one-of-a-kind/blessed is confusing and frightening to me. To me it reeks of personal haughtiness and collective arrogance (as well as collective ignorance).

I think all these claims about how special is the United States serve to reflect the ignorance/arrogance of the speaker more than anything else. I mean, this is the 21st century, the notion of "best country in the world" is laughable while the underlying idea--that there can exist one "best" country--is frightening.


NOTE: You will find a unusually high correspondence between those Americans who embrace/support these notions of American Exceptionalism and lack of overseas travel. In other words, there is an inverse correlation between amount of time spent traveling overseas and the likelihood of holding views deeming America "the best".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Funny how "taking care of internal issues first" has a way of making a country less part of the madding crowd that's rolling downhill all in the same handbasket.

Yes. isn't it?

That's why I wish the United States would focus more of its efforts at home than overseas. And as this point relates to the original topic (war advocacy) why do so many citizens in this country* think it is the job of the United States to be the world's police force?

*Yes, I am aware that citizens of many other countries think this as well. (And when you think about it, who wouldn't want citizens of another nation to fight their battles for them?) But what gets me is the notion within this country that it is right and just and proper for the US to become involved in so many military conflicts un-related to the safety of the United States homeland.


As far as I am concerned, we should close most of our overseas military bases/installations, brings our troops home, and change our national military posture** to fighting one war at a time, a war to defend the homeland of the United States. The notion of going to war to defend "national interests" is a joke when those interests revolve around economic matters and not direct threats to the US homeland. Heck, sometimes I think our leaders commit our troops to military action just so we can use up existing equipment so as to buy new equipment from our weapons manufacturers or to sell military hardware to overseas countries. (In essence, I think the military-industrial complex is real and think that the US going to war is as much about making money for our defense contractors as it is about maintaining the security of the United States.)

**The current national military posture (the QDR) insists the United States military be equipped and able to fight two wars simultaneously.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's why I wish the United States would focus more of its efforts at home than overseas. And as this point relates to the original topic (war advocacy) why do so many citizens in this country* think it is the job of the United States to be the world's police force?

Perhaps it's because we are so heavily invested in international markets for so much of our domestic production (both materials and markets for finished goods) that a lot of that "police force" stuff actually seriously impacts domestic activity?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As far as I am concerned, we should close most of our overseas military bases/installations, brings our troops home, and change our national military posture** to fighting one war at a time, a war to defend the homeland of the United States.

The term "two simultaneous wars" makes it sound like our defense stance is supposed to settle two different foreign squabbles that don't impact domestic security. This is erroneous, as the "two simultaneous wars" stance is intended to defend the US homeland against a first aggressive act by one nation/state/actor, and then against an opportunistic aggressive act by a second nation/state/actor. If for example Iran became militarily aggressive and we engaged with them, it would not be unthinkable for North Korea to take action against us or our allies (as surrogates for us) while we were occupied with Iran. The "two war" policy requires that sufficient reserves of manpower and materiel be available to deal with the second actor while not substantially reducing the ability to act against the first.

I find it interesting how very intelligent many members of Congress are, and how equally intelligent high-level military leaders are, while at the same time they cannot (together or separately) produce a simple, cogent explanation, clear and accessible to the general public, of why this or that defense policy exists. It makes both look less than intelligent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Except they can't marry or serve openly in the military.

Brother and sister can't marry. First cousins can't marry. Parent and child can't marry. Why? Because marriage is not a right. If it were, you'd be fighting for their rights to marry as well. There are a great many ineligible for service in the military and as such are not allowed to serve. Why? Because service in the military is not a right. Gays can and do serve in the military. Ask just about anyone who has served in the US armed forces and they will tell you that they knew of or served directly with a gay soldier. What is it the overwhelming majority of gays are able to do that the .003% who are discharged from the service for being gay weren't able to do? What you refer to as "openly" serve may or may not be important at all. I guess we'll see.

Whatever new ideas there are for health care in this country seem to be squashed by those that want to keep things the way they are.

Again, you just breeze right on past points you're not comfortable addressing. There are over 130 alternate proposals offered by the other side of the aisle. Your obstructionist party of "no" apparently wants the failed status quo over change. Right? I mean, there can't be another way to interpret their opposition using your logic can there?

A public option was new for this country, as was medicare buy in, but all of this was squashed by oversized rhetoric about socialism, large government, blabbity blah blah. I mean, we never even got to the point where we could discuss openly the merits of anything other than what we have without getting bogged down by philosophical obstructionist rhetoric.

We learned words like "socialism", "large government", etc... from folks like Doofy who used to warn us of these things from a more intimate knowledge of their failures. That is, until he decided to get all defensive and nationalist.

As far as new economic circumstances, short selling, sub prime interest rates, and bailouts of this magnitude are all pretty new things, no? You don't really mean to say that the way our economic is structured has not changed over the years, do you? That globalization doesn't exist? All of these changes in our economy merit proper regulation and oversight so that we do not turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse.

You're still not getting it. All these things you mention are the self-serving behaviors of mankind. The reaction to these behaviors is what defines the differences in ideals.

There is a reason why there is the root "conserve" in the word "Conservative" and why you yourself said basically that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem is, it *is* broke. A healthy debate about what we should do to fix things is a great thing to have, but let's call a spade a spade, things *are* broke and it makes no sense to leave everything the way it is.

No one is advocating that we leave things the way they are. This is nothing more than a partisan talking point. If you believe the word "conserve" as the root of Conservative is important, why would Conservatives be considered obstructionist on issues like energy reform for example, as they would naturally be better stewards of energy right? Like I've said numerous times, there are a great many ideals and some of them preserve what works with our current health care system, some of them align more effectively with principles of individual responsibility, moving away from simple entitlement distribution. There are details that both parties can agree on, but if they have to accept the unacceptable to do it, it only makes sense they won't. This should not be construed as only being obstructionist to make your man look bad, this is politics and differing ideals.

It is very frustrating to me that nothing is getting done in this country. Republicans are blocking everything and anything ranging from votes on big issues to appointments of stupid relatively unimportant political positions. Many are not interested in getting stuff done, they are interested in fighting to keep things the way they are. Democrats, on the other hand, seem intent on rolling over and playing dead and looking for excuses for not getting things done.

*error... Republicans weren't able to block anything. See, this is the problem. You keep repeating the same mantra over and over again and it's not making any more sense this time than it did the numerous times before. If someone proposes to whack you over the head with a ball-peen hammer, are you just being an obstructionist nay-sayer by declining?

Both parties have failed us ebuddy, there is little sense in defending either of them. However, that being said, while you might say that the Democrats are not so much a party of change, the Republicans seem even more heavily invested in preventing change.

I have no problem at all holding Republicans to account and have discussed their problems on several occasions. I don't believe they're being as obstructionist as you claim because of course they could've had lit torches storming Pennsylvania Ave and it wouldn't matter because Democrats had a fillibuster-proof majority and got nothing done. You're blaming them for what I can only guess is a need to. You certainly can't logically. The problem here is that you're simply more emotionally invested in your party than I am mine. You've made your allegiances to this Administration known on numerous occasions and while frustrated with their lack of progress, you still point to something or someone else. There of course have been a great many ideas brought forth by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents that simply didn't did get a hearing at all because they didn't align properly with the aggressive agenda of the Administration you're beholden to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

As a self-considered US patriot, I have to agree with Doofy that we have plenty of folly to point and laugh at over here. Not that I think this is in any way "OK," by any means. Just that if I don't see and acknowledge it, I can't do anything to reduce or repair it.

I've obviously represented my point so badly that I can't get anyone to accurately comprehend what I've said here.
- I am not a self-considered patriot.
- I am not a nationalist.
- I have no blind allegiance to this country.

The US finds itself (and has for decades) in a state of extreme flaws socially and otherwise. I have no clue how anyone can read the numerous complaints I've written about the state of our country and get the notion that I believe it to be superior to any other in its present state. My problem is that it is no longer unique as it has continued to adopt the failed policies of centuries gone by. I believe we've strayed too far away from our founding principles and it is those comparatively new principles I generally argue to conserve. This means any change that aligns well with those comparatively new principles is a change I'm more likely to support.

I have no problem getting ideas and improvement initiatives from anyone that has demonstrated a successful model or can explain in a sensible way, why success is the most plausible outcome. I don't care if that idea happens to come from Cuba or the UK.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My problem is that it is no longer unique as it has continued to adopt the failed policies of centuries gone by.

No, you're wrong. The policies of the US are echoed around the world, whilst new ideas from around the world (such as national health service) are brought into the US. The reason you're failing is the same reason everyone else is failing - new principles. It's all a big mish-mash of fail.

But then that's democracy for ya. Give a country democracy and at least 49.9999% of the people responsible for that country's policies are of below average intelligence. Who thought that was a good idea?

Countries running on the old principles are doing just fine.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Countries running on the old principles are doing just fine.

You mean Kings and Queens ?

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You mean Kings and Queens ?

Princes... Tynwalds... Etc., etc..

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, you're wrong. The policies of the US are echoed around the world

What policies of the US are echoed around the world?

But then that's democracy for ya. Give a country democracy and at least 49.9999% of the people responsible for that country's policies are of below average intelligence. Who thought that was a good idea?

Democracy wasn't necessarily the US' founding principle.

Countries running on the old principles are doing just fine.

What countries and what old principles are you talking about?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where did government cheese come from anyway? Was Matt Foley the dude that coined this phrase?

Jeez, what are you, like 12 years old or something? THE CARTER ADMIN decided to give away government stockpiles of cheese to many states, I personally know one of the folks assigned to portion out the cheese. Is research (Google) foreign to you? Details and such seem to be foreign to you in most all your threads.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What policies of the US are echoed around the world?

Ummm. Beating up Iraq. Beating up Afghanistan. Threatening Russia over Georgia. Threatening any country which dares have a tax rate lower than 40%. Supporting terrorism. Getting your votes to vote for airheads who're good at soundbites and not much else. Banking bailouts. Yadda yadda yadda.

You'd be surprised how much US culture and influence filters down to the rest of the world.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. Beating up Iraq. Beating up Afghanistan. Threatening Russia over Georgia. Threatening any country which dares have a tax rate lower than 40%. Supporting terrorism. Getting your votes to vote for airheads who're good at soundbites and not much else. Banking bailouts. Yadda yadda yadda.

You'd be surprised how much US culture and influence filters down to the rest of the world.

To be honest with you, other than Iraq as a (somewhat) recent anomaly that I felt had to be dealt with; I'm not as certain about Afghanistan or driving more terrorism into nuclear Pakistan, etc... I'm in no way on board threatening other countries or troubling countries with lower tax rates, supporting terrorism, or voting airheads that are good at soundbites. I hate the notions of bailouts of any kind. I didn't like tax rebates and increasing entitlements, spending, corruption, lack of sense or the like from the prior Administrations and I don't like it now.

None of these actions are found in the US' very simple and minimalist, founding document. What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two entirely different things. For example, if I thought I could trust our leadership to bring every single last one of our overseas soldiers back home and address our porous borders, I'd be a supporter. I don't care to have as much influence around the globe as you say we do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Jeez, what are you, like 12 years old or something? THE CARTER ADMIN decided to give away government stockpiles of cheese to many states, I personally know one of the folks assigned to portion out the cheese. Is research (Google) foreign to you? Details and such seem to be foreign to you in most all your threads.

Settle down Beavis. If I really cared to learn the origins of government cheese I could found out myself. Every time I hear the expression I think of Matt Foley, so I felt like sharing that.

There is no need for the attacks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be honest with you, other than Iraq as a (somewhat) recent anomaly that I felt had to be dealt with; I'm not as certain about Afghanistan or driving more terrorism into nuclear Pakistan, etc... I'm in no way on board threatening other countries or troubling countries with lower tax rates, supporting terrorism, or voting airheads that are good at soundbites. I hate the notions of bailouts of any kind. I didn't like tax rebates and increasing entitlements, spending, corruption, lack of sense or the like from the prior Administrations and I don't like it now.

None of these actions are found in the US' very simple and minimalist, founding document. What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two entirely different things. For example, if I thought I could trust our leadership to bring every single last one of our overseas soldiers back home and address our porous borders, I'd be a supporter. I don't care to have as much influence around the globe as you say we do.

The idea that we can harken back to yesteryear where we based our lives around a more minimalist legal construct is a flawed premise. For starters, yesteryear was not a perfect moment in history, there were many problems within society.

Secondly, our economy has grown to be a very complex apparatus, as has our legal system, our rights, the roles of corporations, trade with other countries, etc. We live in a far more complicated time, and failing to acknowledge that does us a disservice.

I'm not suggesting that we discard our founding documents, far from it. However, we are not going to find answers to many of the problems we face now in there: energy, a global economy, modern lending practices and forms of regulation, the environment/industrial pollution, climate change, the list goes on...

The sooner that people come to realize that we can't attempt to cripple government in trying to recreate the 1800s, the better.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because marriage is not a right.

Tell it to the Supreme Court. It's already been established that it is.

Edit to clarify: it is not necessarily inconsistent to say that marriage is a right and yet same sex couples should not have access to it. But it is without question a basic civil right in the eyes of the Court.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not suggesting that we discard our founding documents, far from it. However, we are not going to find answers to many of the problems we face now in there...

The documents are for our protection from tyrannical rule. They are not meant to provide answers, but rather boundaries.

The answers you seek are answers we can achieve without shredding our backbone. But that's where we fundamentally disagree. Your agenda desires tyrannical rule over the people. Mine does not. You want to control everything because you feel you know best. I want individuals to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, as they desire. You want regulations, certifications, permissions, taxes, the mandate to make healthcare decisions for each and every American, the ability to shut down entire industries (or take them over),etc.. I want as little of these as possible. You want to restrict speech, to use terms like "community review" or "peer review" to silence words, thoughts, and ideas that run counter to your agenda. You prefer a nation of people who are increasingly dependent on government, and you want to mandate this dependency for all. I want none of that while acknowledging the need to have safety nets for those Americans who are truly downtrodden. You want federal centralization that affects entire aspects of citizens' lives. I prefer more power in the hands of state and local governments, so that the people have a stronger voice over the way they are governed.

So yes, with your agenda, the Constitution does not work for you or your movement, because it provides the people with protections from your tyrannical desires.

But make no mistake: answers to our issues can be had while honoring our Constitution and other documents. It just doesn't suit your agenda, so you come up with the flimsy excuse that the documents prevent us from solving said issues. But you know this already.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The documents are for our protection from tyrannical rule. They are not meant to provide answers, but rather boundaries.

The answers you seek are answers we can achieve without shredding our backbone. But that's where we fundamentally disagree. Your agenda desires tyrannical rule over the people. Mine does not. You want to control everything because you feel you know best. I want individuals to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, as they desire. You want regulations, certifications, permissions, taxes, the mandate to make healthcare decisions for each and every American, the ability to shut down entire industries (or take them over),etc.. I want as little of these as possible. You want to restrict speech, to use terms like "community review" or "peer review" to silence words, thoughts, and ideas that run counter to your agenda. You prefer a nation of people who are increasingly dependent on government, and you want to mandate this dependency for all. I want none of that while acknowledging the need to have safety nets for those Americans who are truly downtrodden. You want federal centralization that affects entire aspects of citizens' lives. I prefer more power in the hands of state and local governments, so that the people have a stronger voice over the way they are governed.

So yes, with your agenda, the Constitution does not work for you or your movement, because it provides the people with protections from your tyrannical desires.

But make no mistake: answers to our issues can be had while honoring our Constitution and other documents. It just doesn't suit your agenda, so you come up with the flimsy excuse that the documents prevent us from solving said issues. But you know this already.

Wow, yet another dead-on post.

And to the peanut gallery: the above and other examples are mostly the IDEAL that conservatives are talking about being the best system of government- it's what we'd like to see, not necessarily what's been fully realized. That our founding documents at least allow for the possibility, and recognize the strengths of limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people, is what we like about our system. They're ideas that were revolutionary when conceived, and many of us believe are the foundation of the must successful form of governance. We see our constitution and revolution as not just another exercise in paying lip service to the ideas formed during the age of enlightenment, but among the first actual ACTION taken to implement those ideas.

Now, that said: has the US achieved the best possible results that those ideas and our founding documents allow for? No.

Guilty as charged: we too have too often succumb to the nanny-state desires of petty political hacks who seek to brush aside the limits of the constitution in order to push the soft tyrannies* their agendas dictate. We have the same problems any country has when too many people don't care about or even know about the limitations and purpose of the founding documents, and so accept more nanny-state snake oil from political hacks. We have politicians that themselves don't care about or know about the constraints of the constitution and spend their entire political careers trying to operate outside it.

So is our system of government the best in terms of actual results? Definitely debatable.

But I think it's unarguably better than most of the 'old principals' that existed before the concepts laid down in the constitution came about. Personally, I've not met many people-that have any *real* grasp of history that is- pining away for monarchies and most of the crap that was standard fare before the age of enlightenment, or that measure the success of a nation based around how fat some bunch of 'ruling class' nitwits are.

*Gotta give credit where it's due to Mark Levin for recognizing the need for the modifier 'soft'- before tyranny. So many people don't understand that the tyrannies they are in favor of aren't ones going around trying to toss people into gas ovens, but a 'soft' version that uses tyrannical means to push an agenda that the perpetrators of believe is for everyone's good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The documents are for our protection from tyrannical rule. They are not meant to provide answers, but rather boundaries.

The answers you seek are answers we can achieve without shredding our backbone. But that's where we fundamentally disagree. Your agenda desires tyrannical rule over the people. Mine does not. You want to control everything because you feel you know best. I want individuals to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, as they desire. You want regulations, certifications, permissions, taxes, the mandate to make healthcare decisions for each and every American, the ability to shut down entire industries (or take them over),etc.. I want as little of these as possible. You want to restrict speech, to use terms like "community review" or "peer review" to silence words, thoughts, and ideas that run counter to your agenda. You prefer a nation of people who are increasingly dependent on government, and you want to mandate this dependency for all. I want none of that while acknowledging the need to have safety nets for those Americans who are truly downtrodden. You want federal centralization that affects entire aspects of citizens' lives. I prefer more power in the hands of state and local governments, so that the people have a stronger voice over the way they are governed.

So yes, with your agenda, the Constitution does not work for you or your movement, because it provides the people with protections from your tyrannical desires.

But make no mistake: answers to our issues can be had while honoring our Constitution and other documents. It just doesn't suit your agenda, so you come up with the flimsy excuse that the documents prevent us from solving said issues. But you know this already.

Spacefreak, you have no idea what I want and what my agenda is. Frankly, I think that many Conservatives in here do not understand people with differing ideas, and probably vice versa. You would be best off *asking* me what my viewpoints are, if you care, rather than preaching at me what they are.

[besson3c]

Why do people cling to notions such as those expressed by Spacefreak, above?

Nobody here thinks that the economy should be completely unregulated, not even Ron Paul. Ron Paul would say that we need regulation in place to protect us from fraud and abuse. Can we all agree with this?

If so, why do people say things like what Spacefreak has said as if we live (or should live) in a truly free market, and as if opponents are against freedoms in general? We all like freedom, reminding people constantly of how great freedom is is like reminding people that ice cream is tasty.

The question is, and will always be, one of balance. That is it. Democrats/the left are not enemies of freedom, they do not desire "tyrannical rule" (what hyperbole that is), they do not want to convert to socialism, they simply have a different idea where these balances lie, that is it.

Really, that is it.

[spacefreak]

Your views that I attributed to you are evident in your policy positions and desires.

I am not necessarily in favor of a "truly free market" or complete deregulation. In that sense, you are correct when you speak of disagreement over where the balance lies.

As for tyranny, the positions you take and policies you support lead towards that end.

You want to tax people more, and go for the jugular on the same 10% of wage earners who pay 80% of our federal tax revenues. That's cruel. You want to make people pay more for energy. That's cruel. The people you support desire a Fairness Doctrine, aka Community Review Board aimed at restricting speech. That's oppressive.

[besson3c]

See above, spacefreak. You don't know jack shit about what I want and think, you just think you do.

I hope you meant "you" in a very general way, not speaking to me specifically.

Seriously dude, unless you just come here to preach at people, you'd learn more and make your own positions stronger by asking rather than telling.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But I think it's unarguably better than most of the 'old principals' that existed before the concepts laid down in the constitution came about. Personally, I've not met many people-that have any *real* grasp of history that is- pining away for monarchies and most of the crap that was standard fare before the age of enlightenment, or that measure the success of a nation based around how fat some bunch of 'ruling class' nitwits are.

You need to get out more then Crash. Pop yourself over to Monaco for a hol and have a word with some folks there to see if they'll exchange their monarchy for your mob rule.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nobody here thinks that the economy should be completely unregulated, not even Ron Paul. Ron Paul would say that we need regulation in place to protect us from fraud and abuse. Can we all agree with this?

Huh? Here's an excellent article by Ron Paul;

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

When you hear Ron Paul cite the need for regulation, he's talking about the Federal Reserve my friend, not the free market economy. So... no we can't all agree.

[ebuddy]

Just as an aside, if you can't effectively govern a population of 33,000 as a Republic, a Democracy, a Monarchy, or hell... even a socialist tyranny - you need to wrap it up and throw it in a friggin' dumpster.

If the model for success is contingent upon sovereign city-states the size of one county in Nebraska, USA, we need to be ever thankful no one wants it or they'd simply come and take it from you. I love these types of comparisons as if they're some type of panacea of failing governance. The answer of course is to be entirely dependent upon the countries that flank you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just as an aside, if you can't effectively govern a population of 33,000 as a Republic, a Democracy, a Monarchy, or hell... even a socialist tyranny - you need to wrap it up and throw it in a friggin' dumpster.

If the model for success is contingent upon sovereign city-states the size of one county in Nebraska, USA, we need to be ever thankful no one wants it or they'd simply come and take it from you. I love these types of comparisons as if they're some type of panacea of failing governance. The answer of course is to be entirely dependent upon the countries that flank you.

Enjoy your deficit.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Inferiority complex. Combine that with the brainwashing at every verse end and there ya go.

(And before anyone whines like a baby, I take issue with the patriotic types in my own country too. Idiots, the lot of them.)

QFT
The phrase `to form a more perfect union' comes to mind (what do you mean, it isn't perfect as it is? ). If you cheer for your own country like you would for your favorite sports team, perhaps it isn't all that great.
(Didn't think I would ever do that with one of Doofy's posts )

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To Doofy: please provide a short list of the European countries not affected by the credit crunch at all. Thanks.

There is a difference between `our whole banking system plus large parts of the economy are on the verge of collapse' and being affected a little by the crisis.
Perhaps some countries, some European countries (not mine) have managed the crisis better than others. Socialist Sweden, for instance, hasn't suffered as much from the crisis.

And why do you feel the need to `attribute the worst elements' with Europe? The best element at least came from Europe: democracy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

the above and other examples are mostly the IDEAL that conservatives are talking about being the best system of government- it's what we'd like to see, not necessarily what's been fully realized. That our founding documents at least allow for the possibility, and recognize the strengths of limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people, is what we like about our system.

I am one liberal-minded citizen who also is in favor of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people". So,

tell me how allowing our government to spy on its own citizens comports with these ideals?
tell me how accepting our government's overthrow of the leaders of other nations (Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile for starters) comports with these ideals?
tell me how preventing two adult citizens from doing certain things in their private lives comports with these ideals?
tell me how engaging in massive deficit spending that doubles (Bush II) or triples (Reagan) the size of the national debt comports with these ideals?
tell me how supporting and encouraging a President who invokes the idea of a "unitary executive" unanswerable to the other branches of government comports with these ideals?
tell me how discussing government policy behind closed doors (Cheney and his discussions of energy policy at the White House or Hillary Clinton and her discussions of health-care policy at the White House) comports with these ideals?


My point is not to direct criticism at conservatives and their viewpoints but rather to indicate where conservatives let their personal/political biases ignore their desire for "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people". Pointing out this hypocrisy serves only one thing, to put on notice those that claim to support "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people" MUST support it even when doing so disagrees with their political orientation.

In other words, you can't support "limited government and separation of powers" AND support a President who orders the government to spy on its own citizens and defends his actions with a concept--the unitary executive (and indirectly the legislative "signing statements" he committed based on the idea of the unitary executive)--more suited to a monarchy than a representative democracy.

So, if you were a conservative supporting President Bush when he pushed for the government to spy on its own citizens and who approved legislation with a "but" attached to his signature, or advocated for a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to exist only between a man and woman you can't really claim to be a true fan of the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people" unless you did then or do now denounce those actions by President Bush as contrary to the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people".

And, if you were a liberal supporting President Obama when he continued to allow the government to spy on its own citizens and who continues to abuse the state secrets act you can't really claim to be a true fan of the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people" unless you do now denounce those actions by President Obama as contrary to the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people".


If any of you want to reply with complaints about Clinton or Obama not adhering to the principles of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people", by all means please do so. We need to have a list of ALL the actions taken by our Presidents that contravene the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people" so we can collectively make it known we oppose such actions REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL PARTY OF THE LEADER.


NOTE: I have created a new thread where we can compile a list of all the things our government leader do, or have done, that are in contravention to the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I am one liberal-minded citizen who also is in favor of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people". So,

tell me how allowing our government to spy on its own citizens comports with these ideals?

First off, our government (as represented by law enforcement agencies) spies on its own citizens every single day during the course of *ANY* police investigation. I can tell you're working from a construct of "let's try and trip up conservatives using some distorted example about Bush" but you, me, and everyone allows the government to investigate (IE spy on) accused criminals, would-be terrorists, etc. etc.

And this whole tact is rather ironic coming specifically from you, Mr. "in favor of limited government and separation of powers."

Not even that long ago I had a debate with you, revolving around just this subject. where I asked you: Would you rather every law be policed under one big federal police force, or would you rather have state and local police forces handling state and local issues, and federal police sticking to their own jurisdiction?

Your answer:
Sure, why not. If we are going to have one nationwide set of rules for something, why not have one nationwide agency enforcing them?

Before that, I recall you not even being aware that there are federal law enforcement agencies (There are of course, 8).

I fail completely to see how your concern about 'the government spying on citizens' squares with any kind of desire for a nationwide police force, IE: the basic cornerstone of any police STATE. That you don't seem to grasp this and claim to be for (or even understand at all!) separation of powers, amazes me.

tell me how accepting our government's overthrow of the leaders of other nations (Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile for starters) comports with these ideals?

I don't agree with every government attempt at overthrow of someone else, no one does. Generally speaking, working to bring about the overthrow of an oppressive and aggressive regime like Iran is a good thing- history shows us clearly that the choice is often deal with the problem at the outset, or deal with it later when Axis powers are declaring war on you and attacking you. Government does have a duty to protect its citizens and the nation, and though it's not an easy balance to maintain, yes, there has to be a level of foreign policy that addresses this.

tell me how preventing two adult citizens from doing certain things in their private lives comports with these ideals?

It doesn't. Personally, my position on this doesn't conform with the majority of Americans, yes, both conservative and liberal. It's another example to me of how much of the population doesn't understand where the limits of government power should be, and are perfectly happy with allowing the use of government power to push their own personal beliefs, constitution be damned.

tell me how engaging in massive deficit spending that doubles (Bush II) or triples (Reagan) the size of the national debt comports with these ideals?

It doesn't and again, your selective examples give you away. This has been gone over a billion times- Reagan proved that lower taxes increased revenue- he did so and congress spent like crazy above and beyond the increase. Bush was blasted by conservatives for his spending. No real conservative has EVER listed Bush as a fiscal conservative- he simply wasn't. Telling how you left Obama off the list- so leftists have really convinced yourself that Obama hasn't contributed to the deficit and isn't proposing even more deficit spending?

tell me how supporting and encouraging a President who invokes the idea of a "unitary executive" unanswerable to the other branches of government comports with these ideals?

It doesn't. It's why we shouldn't have unelected 'czars' or federally appointed committees making healthcare decisions for citizens.

tell me how discussing government policy behind closed doors (Cheney and his discussions of energy policy at the White House or Hillary Clinton and her discussions of health-care policy at the White House) comports with these ideals?

Again you leave out Obama and the current D congress, kings and queens of the closed door? It's not so much the closed doors anyway, but the rotten, anti-constitutional ideas often being hashed out- against the will of the people- behind them that 'don't comport'.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You need to get out more then Crash. Pop yourself over to Monaco for a hol and have a word with some folks there to see if they'll exchange their monarchy for your mob rule.

I just saw this-

Monaco!

Could you possibly come up with a more fantasyland -as far from the realities of most people on earth- example if you tried?

Dude, the MAYORS of average small towns have more to deal with than some dipshit in power in Monaco! The population is over 80% foreign nationals, most of them wealthy.

That's your real world example!

ebuddy pegged it- you used to be a voice of reason around here, but lately you've gone very oddball-nationalistic, while pretending you're 'above it all'. When you come back down to some sort of earthbound *reality* please let us know.