[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

newcitizen.us - Dual Citizenship

This is right, but it's sort of a weird technicality. You're supposed to state the oath, but a number of countries (like Canada) simply do not recognize this and allow you to keep your original citizenship. Not all countries work this way though, AFAIK, there are some countries where there is one-way-ticket status with.

That's on them, but I think this language gives them justification for this one-way-ticket sort of deal.

Either way, my point is that there is some official, symbolic, national, historical, often subtle expectation of "becoming Americanized". However, Shaddim is not wrong either that culturally, most people do not expect some sort of particular commitment towards adopting all-things-America.

Isn't the key whether the US allows you to keep your other citizenship?

Since they do, I'd say it's not to what the oath is meant to apply.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Denounce is actually closer to what happens than renounce.

It's not exactly right, but I felt odd correcting him into a term which is an even less accurate in regards to the subject.

I have never heard of someone denouncing their citizenship.

[el chupacabra]

I'd argue we are 100% democracy. This doesn't mean we're not oligarchy too, but that we are by a choice by apathy towards being politically active. I think a true republic would be a state where you vote for leaders who can then do whatever they want regardless of public opinion. The evidence suggests when people get rallied up and organized enough for a cause, they get their way. It requires you to be motivated, informed, to set up interest groups and have regular meetings. The average person doesn't show up to any meetings, it's hard enough just getting them to write letters to representatives or sign petitions.

People think they're "doing their part" by showing up at voting booths, not realizing they're voting for 2 candidates who are groomed by corporate interest. They act surprised about how corrupt a politician is. Maybe he's not corrupt, maybe he realizes that you didn't' vote for him, but instead corporate interests brainwashed you to support him. Maybe when a decision hit his desk there were 30 stacks of paper detailing JPMorgan-Chase-Washington-mutual-Bear-Stearns, Kaiser, and BP's opinion of the subject, but when he turned his ear to the public all he heard were crickets chirping. At best he heard disorganization uneducated short term banter among the white noise for the cause of the moment.

Why did he hear crickets? Because people would rather hit the bar, brag about getting laid, brag about their job, play people, compete for who has the funniest 1 liner, or perhaps put war paint on and scream at ball players for hours, spend weeks researching how to grow pot & peyote at home, maybe they watch hours of soaps or Game of Thrones; as they get older they might spend their time posting a thousand pics of their babies smiling on facebook. It's a free country so to each their own... Point is people have plenty of genius and time for the things they consider most important. Meanwhile corporate interests have also detailed a number of threats to the politician's career if he doesn't consider their position; he turns his ear to the public again only to realize they'll vote him in or out; and support whatever positions they're manipulated to support by the corporate interest spin.

So I allege it may seem like an uncontrollable republic but the nation can be taken back in a month if people organized collectively. I allege the "republic" is only there to put into place our decisions, but we've gone so far as to let them make decisions for us simply by not participating. I recon as long as people are only inconvenienced in small steps at a time by policy, they wont care.

Take notes from the NRA. You may not like their power, but there's nothing stopping you from starting your own N__A except political apathy of others and possibly yourselves.
We get the policy we voted for, not the policy we voted for individually, but collectively.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have never heard of someone denouncing their citizenship.

Hence me saying it wasn't quite right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Take notes from the NRA. You may not like their power, but there's nothing stopping you from starting your own N__A except political apathy of others and possibly yourselves.

I'm going to start the NWA.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I see fine, Snidely, but you and others here have become so accustomed to bashing the USA, that anything positive or different said about it causes you to have a fit. Furthermore, if I leaned on your countries as much you've attempted to abuse mine, you'd think you were ill-used, but I'm expected to take it. Screw that, it's not happening anymore. While "America" has its issues there are some wonderful places to live in it, some of the finest on Earth.

I don't get why you're so passive aggressive. I don't see any connection between diversity and being a great place to live, you don't need to be number 1 in everything (population, poverty, sports, average income) to be a nice place to live. And to misconstrue arguing about these points as bashing America is quite alienating, especially when people have had personal experience working or living in the US.

[subego]

I surmise the tone of his post is rooted in it being a reply to someone who took a personal shot at him.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You know, this sued to be a big pet peeve of mine. ****ing government infested by lawyers, a profession that doesn't get much respect in the modern era.

Then I watched the John Adams miniseries and I realized many of the people who were instrumental to drafting the constitution were a bunch of lawyers. And yes, they were wealthy. So as far as indictments of our current government go, lamenting they are rich or lawyers is stupid given the nation's roots.

Lawyers are not what they used to be. Of course the USA was founded by lawyers, read the Federalist Papers.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not misguided, he is absolutely correct that the official national stance is that of a melting pot/assimilation. This is why other foreign citizenships need to be denounced at the citizenship oath ceremony. He didn't say this is how things actually play out culturally though, which is what you're talking about here.

I was blatantly talking about culture, so why wouldn't it be what he implied?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

renouncing previous allegiances != denouncing your previous citizenship

Dual citizenship has long been possible (allowable) for US citizens.

-t

I have dual, though not at all recognized by the USA (my mother is Cuban), Cuba fully accepts it and I've visited a few times, legally.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I surmise the tone of his post is rooted in it being a reply to someone who took a personal shot at him.

Yep, this thread can easy be interpreted as minor trolling. So the reason for its existence is to bash in a passive-aggressive manner, much like the PL threads of old. That it might illicit irritable responses is par for the course, I'd say.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1864

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933


Presented without comment.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I was blatantly talking about culture, so why wouldn't it be what he implied?

You were arguing with Phileas, who was pointing out the same technicality.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, this thread can easy be interpreted as minor trolling. So the reason for its existence is to bash in a passive-aggressive manner, much like the PL threads of old. That it might illicit irritable responses is par for the course, I'd say.

Maybe its reason for existence was just to debate an opinion or observation? I too don't understand your defensiveness here (which goes back to one of your previous forum signatures). If you feel that America needs to be defended, what better way than to have this conversation without the drama?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe its reason for existence was just to debate an opinion or observation? I too don't understand your defensiveness here (which goes back to one of your previous forum signatures). If you feel that America needs to be defended, what better way than to have this conversation without the drama?

Really? You're going to start that crap again? You must have the least amount of empathy in the entire world, your inability to place yourself in any position you don't want to understand is staggering.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Really? You're going to start that crap again? You must have the least amount of empathy in the entire world, your inability to place yourself in any position you don't want to understand is staggering.

I'm sorry Shaddim, but the same could be applied to you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You know, this sued to be a big pet peeve of mine. ****ing government infested by lawyers, a profession that doesn't get much respect in the modern era.

Then I watched the John Adams miniseries and I realized many of the people who were instrumental to drafting the constitution were a bunch of lawyers. And yes, they were wealthy. So as far as indictments of our current government go, lamenting they are rich or lawyers is stupid given the nation's roots.

I'm also waiting to see how it matters. Enter Country, Nation-State, Province, Region, or Centralized Authority __here__; it is Big Labor & Governing Authority vs Free Market and Private Enterprise. Period. The study doesn't hit this specifically, but it does address it with what it calls biased pluralism.

Oligarchs? Okay... so what? This almost nearly ends up in a pissing contest between the US and the EU, but was that the intent of the study? Are we trying to say that this has manifest in a more or less oppressive system or a better system elsewhere? Better representation for the average Jack in the House of Lords for example?

What then are your metrics? And why are we so compelled to pit the US against other Centralized Authorities as if there's something to be learned from them other than what not to do or that we should decrease the scope of power granted to the centralized authority?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Lawyers are not what they used to be. Of course the USA was founded by lawyers, read the Federalist Papers.

Don't hold me in suspense, what do you see as the changes in the profession between then and now?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm also waiting to see how it matters.

Connections, I suspect. Assuming the books and docs I've seen weren't whitewashed, the biggest difference between then and now is the level of corruption and self-interest in politicians today. You could easily write-off corruption as a side-effect of power, but I'd be harder pressed to pinpoint the second deficiency.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Incorrect, a quick jaunt to any major city, and most of the minor ones, you'll see entire communities of varying cultures. Around here we're largely Scots and Welsh, with some Irish and German descendants. The old Lutheran church down the road is one of the oldest in the SE USA. Knoxville, about 45 minutes away, has a large, thriving Greek community and enough Armenians to fill a small college basketball arena. Your misguided impression of assimilation isn't surprising, however, we get that a lot from Canadians.

Incorrect, and no need for taking cheap shots. This wasn't meant to be a value judgement, just an observation of fact as stated by pretty much anybody who has an interest in cultural differences between Canada and the US.

The idea of a melting pot, which leads to an understanding that one is American first has been around for a long, long time. Third generation Americans (Canadians) calling themselves German, Scottish, Welsh or Irish is amusing to those of us who originate from these countries and almost always of only sentimental significance.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The old Lutheran church down the road is one of the oldest in the SE USA.

When you say old, do you mean like 200 years old? (The church in the part of town I grew up in was built in 1236, but it was built around a convent that was formed in the 9th century.) That's one of the big differences and differentiates old from new countries: there are layers upon layers of cultural sediment that differentiate between different regions.

Like Phileas said, when I asked people where they're from, they'd break down their heritage (1/8 polish 3/8 German, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 English), but I no longer felt any trace of their heritage because it was too far removed. When I was living in PA, sure, I could pick up some German words in the vernacular, but that's about it, the first-generation ancestors had died long time ago, and thus, also the connection with the »old country« had died with them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have never heard of someone denouncing their citizenship.

Originally Posted by subego 

Denounce is actually closer to what happens than renounce.

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence me saying it wasn't quite right.

Does not compute.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure why it is killing you

Mmmm, taste the passive aggression! Perhaps I can share a helping?

You see, besson, there's this thing called, "exaggeration". The misuse was not, in actuality, killing me, however several people not batting an eyelash (before you ask, this is a figure of speech as I am sure they blinked at some point while reading this thread), at a malapropism I've never heard before was jarring. Their lack of reaction inferred, to me, that somehow they thought this usage was correct when in reality it comically undermined the point you were trying to make ("My Canadian citizenship is evil! I denounce it").

Does this clear up the matter for you?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'm sorry Shaddim, but the same could be applied to you.

Hardly, you have no idea what my views were when I started here, ask a few of the oldtimers about how my positions have changed over the last decade. It's because I force myself to see issues from other perspectives. Some people here haven't moved an inch, and likely never will.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

When you say old, do you mean like 200 years old? (The church in the part of town I grew up in was built in 1236, but it was built around a convent that was formed in the 9th century.) That's one of the big differences and differentiates old from new countries: there are layers upon layers of cultural sediment that differentiate between different regions.

Like Phileas said, when I asked people where they're from, they'd break down their heritage (1/8 polish 3/8 German, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 English), but I no longer felt any trace of their heritage because it was too far removed. When I was living in PA, sure, I could pick up some German words in the vernacular, but that's about it, the first-generation ancestors had died long time ago, and thus, also the connection with the »old country« had died with them.

Well, Lutherans haven't been around that long, only about half that, but it's been there for nearly 250 years (rebuilt several times). My Gr-gr-grandmother on my father's side could trace her people's history in the Americas for >20 centuries.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Mmmm, taste the passive aggression! Perhaps I can share a helping?

You see, besson, there's this thing called, "exaggeration". The misuse was not, in actuality, killing me, however several people not batting an eyelash (before you ask, this is a figure of speech as I am sure they blinked at some point while reading this thread), at a malapropism I've never heard before was jarring. Their lack of reaction inferred, to me, that somehow they thought this usage was correct when in reality it comically undermined the point you were trying to make ("My Canadian citizenship is evil! I denounce it").

Does this clear up the matter for you?

This wasn't the point I was trying to make, and this doesn't explain your hostile tone, but I think continuing this conversation will result in more hostility and/or bickering over something I don't really care enough about, so I'm going to move on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hardly, you have no idea what my views were when I started here, ask a few of the oldtimers about how my positions have changed over the last decade. It's because I force myself to see issues from other perspectives. Some people here haven't moved an inch, and likely never will.

At some point I would like to hear about your positions that have changed. Not because I doubt what you are saying here, I'm just wondering what effect MacNN specifically has had on you over the years.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't hold me in suspense, what do you see as the changes in the profession between then and now?

At one time they were a part of the noble class, or as close to a noble class as this country allowed. They were required to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, their vows to the law when they passed the bar were borderline draconian, and they were expected to live by them. Now they're given more latitude than anyone else when it comes to unlawful activity, because they use what they know to exploit the holes in the system, that they themselves made.

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Incorrect, and no need for taking cheap shots. This wasn't meant to be a value judgement, just an observation of fact as stated by pretty much anybody who has an interest in cultural differences between Canada and the US.

The idea of a melting pot, which leads to an understanding that one is American first has been around for a long, long time. Third generation Americans (Canadians) calling themselves German, Scottish, Welsh or Irish is amusing to those of us who originate from these countries and almost always of only sentimental significance.

Cheap shots? That is a puzzler, I'm not sure where you're coming from on that. Again, we've established that those very same communities and traditions remain intact here, in the USA, or at least as much as they do about anywhere else. I spend time in Scotland, too much time really, and within that very country the older folks are amused by how little the younger generation care about their traditions, and only give them "sentimental significance". And by "amused" I actually mean pretty pissed off. ie. My caretaker yelling at his 17 y/o son; "Get off your damned internet and help with supper, ya lazy bastard! *pause* Oh Jesus help us, if ya keep tuggin' yer c*ck you'll pull the damned thing right off, go out and find a real girl!" In other words, not that different than the US, really.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At one time they were a part of the noble class, or as close to a noble class as this country allowed. They were required to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, their vows to the law when they passed the bar were borderline draconian, and they were expected to live by them. Now they're given more latitude than anyone else when it comes to unlawful activity, because they use what they know to exploit the holes in the system, that they themselves made.

Are we still talking lawyers or politicians? Still, it'd be interesting to see a comparison of the ethical standards of lawyers back then and now.

(Draconian standards? I wonder why they were relaxed)

[mattyb]

Why do you think that people were any different (lawyers or politicians) 'back then'? I'd bring up Manifest Destiny again, but that would make me anti-American.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Why do you think that people were any different (lawyers or politicians) 'back then'?

Because I've read some of the history. If you think there's a contemporary for Washington or Adams or Franklin in the US, I'm all ears.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, Lutherans haven't been around that long, only about half that, but it's been there for nearly 250 years (rebuilt several times). My Gr-gr-grandmother on my father's side could trace her people's history in the Americas for >20 centuries.

Huh, I guess Lutherans were amongst the first permanent settlers? I imagine TN must have been settled during the second half of the 1700s.

I've never thought to look into Native American ancestral records, but I've always just assumed that they did not go anywhere near back that far without any writing system. How did she get back 2000 years? Some sort of extensive oral tradition? Or was it a Mayan thing? I think some Mayan texts were ancestral right?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are we still talking lawyers or politicians?

It's hard to become the latter without being the former, so mostly both.

Still, it'd be interesting to see a comparison of the ethical standards of lawyers back then and now.

(Draconian standards? I wonder why they were relaxed)

Swearing "on pain of death" by your deeds to uphold the "word and spirit of the law" became old-fashioned, I guess.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's hard to become the latter without being the former, so mostly both.

The reason I asked is:

Now they're given more latitude than anyone else when it comes to unlawful activity, because they use what they know to exploit the holes in the system, that they themselves made.

I don't know what exactly you're referring to here. I see politicans as having designed the laws, but yeah, lawyers can exploit it. But I don't understand the latitude part. Politicians with their "there's no such thing as insider trading" comes to mind, but that applies to any profession in congress.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Swearing "on pain of death" by your deeds to uphold the "word and spirit of the law" became old-fashioned, I guess.

Did that actually happen to anyone, though? If lawyers were put to death for breaches of ethics in Ye Olde America, I fell asleep during that lesson.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Huh, I guess Lutherans were amongst the first permanent settlers? I imagine TN must have been settled during the second half of the 1700s.

I've never thought to look into Native American ancestral records, but I've always just assumed that they did not go anywhere near back that far without any writing system. How did she get back 2000 years? Some sort of extensive oral tradition? Or was it a Mayan thing? I think some Mayan texts were ancestral right?

Some tribes have a very long oral tradition, going back hundreds of generations. The validity of them could be considered suspect, and are mostly legend now, but that's the case with any society. Even written records have been extensively altered to suit different agendas. Although it is a lot easier to cut out a section of a manuscript than wipe out an entire culture, both have been done, frequently.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The reason I asked is:

I don't know what exactly you're referring to here. I see politicans as having designed the laws, but yeah, lawyers can exploit it. But I don't understand the latitude part. Politicians with their "there's no such thing as insider trading" comes to mind, but that applies to any profession in congress.

Did that actually happen to anyone, though? If lawyers were put to death for breaches of ethics in Ye Olde America, I fell asleep during that lesson.

Words have power, saying them gives them weight, and even though it was symbolic, the action was important. If you swear to honor a verbal contract do you feel obliged to keep it, does a person's "word" mean anything anymore? Serious question, there. Nowadays I believe it means much less than it did and most people don't understand honor anymore.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Words have power, saying them gives them weight, and even though it was symbolic, the action was important. If you swear to honor a verbal contract do you feel obliged to keep it, does a person's "word" mean anything anymore? Serious question, there. Nowadays I believe it means much less than it did and most people don't understand honor anymore.

Oh, I agree. It's why I mentioned to mattyb about Washington and Adams. They had a strong sense of ethics which included duty and to me it seemed in that the great divide between then and now exists. They believed in a duty to public service, a duty not to abuse their power, etc. They weren't perfect men, but in service to their country they gave far more than they took.

(To be fair Adams was always concerned with finances and given while I don't have the numbers on hand, his salary for being a diplomat, etc. always sounded like it was pretty damn good, even if it didn't match his former profession's)

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, I agree. It's why I mentioned to mattyb about Washington and Adams. They had a strong sense of ethics which included duty and to me it seemed in that the great divide between then and now exists. They believed in a duty to public service, a duty not to abuse their power, etc. They weren't perfect men, but in service to their country they gave far more than they took.

(To be fair Adams was always concerned with finances and given while I don't have the numbers on hand, his salary for being a diplomat, etc. always sounded like it was pretty damn good, even if it didn't match his former profession's)

I'd agree that several (most) of the founding fathers were principled men and (overlooking the slave ownership issue) that duty, honour, and oaths were important to them. However (and no I haven't found or read anything to back me up) I find it hard to believe that everything was just roses, that there was no corruption (what was done may not even have been classified as corruption at that time) and that everyone who swore on a bible could be trusted.

I mostly think of what was done to the American Indians in the 19th century as showing how trustworthy the politicians of the time were, but must admit that I know nothing about the Indian issue around and after the War of Independence.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Lawyers are not what they used to be. Of course the USA was founded by lawyers, read the Federalist Papers.

Point of clarification: the US was founded by attorneys, not what we today call "lawyers." The Founding Fathers pledged their honor, their fortunes, and their lives to the success of the revolution. A modern "lawyer" isolates himself/herself from all manner of such entanglements. And I can't see Washington or Adams advertising in the middle of daytime soaps to "go with Lawyer Joe and get the compensation you deserve!!!", can you?

The modern "lawyer" has little similarity to the kinds of people the Founding Fathers were...

[mattyb]

According to this, there wasn't even a legal qualification in the US before 1793.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Point of clarification: the US was founded by attorneys, not what we today call "lawyers."

You...you do know that an attorney is just a synonym for lawyer, right? "Legal counsel"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Connections, I suspect. Assuming the books and docs I've seen weren't whitewashed, the biggest difference between then and now is the level of corruption and self-interest in politicians today. You could easily write-off corruption as a side-effect of power, but I'd be harder pressed to pinpoint the second deficiency.

I'd submit that the corruption and self-interest among leadership becomes more apparent to the collective when the purview of leadership increases to include more of the livelihoods of that collective. In keeping with my "you can't bribe a giraffe to swim because they can't swim" analogy; the more "Yes We Can" mentality among leadership, the more corruption enters into the equation. Pharmaceutical giants would not have a lobby without the interest of leadership in negotiating rates for their constituents. Same with Big Insurance, Big Energy, Big Finance, and Big __enter Corporate interest here__; the more of our livelihoods we place in the hands of leadership, the more important they become to us and the greater their God-complex.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

However (and no I haven't found or read anything to back me up) I find it hard to believe that everything was just roses, that there was no corruption (what was done may not even have been classified as corruption at that time) and that everyone who swore on a bible could be trusted.

No shit, I didn't claim the absurd position that everything was perfect back then. God knows we probably dodged a bullet when Alexander Hamilton and his big mouth didn't.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd submit that the corruption and self-interest among leadership becomes more apparent to the collective when the purview of leadership increases to include more of the livelihoods of that collective. In keeping with my "you can't bribe a giraffe to swim because they can't swim" analogy; the more "Yes We Can" mentality among leadership, the more corruption enters into the equation. Pharmaceutical giants would not have a lobby without the interest of leadership in negotiating rates for their constituents. Same with Big Insurance, Big Energy, Big Finance, and Big __enter Corporate interest here__; the more of our livelihoods we place in the hands of leadership, the more important they become to us and the greater their God-complex.

Dumb this down for me, please.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Had to read it a couple times, but it sounds like he's advocating for less/no government involvement in Big Insurance/Energy/Finance etc? Possibly because, you know, the free market is awesome.

I mean, come on people, much of this is just the same old rehash of the same debate that has raged for many, many years (see: my first post above), except now we think everything was actually waaaaay better back in the old days when they were complaining about the exact same thing.

Hell, I'm pretty sure I saw a comment somewhere a few months ago about how Andrew Jackson was one of the great Presidents or something, ignoring, you know, all the genocidal maniac stuff I suppose? I mean...I don`t even...history and rose-coloured glasses and all that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dumb this down for me, please.

The more involved government becomes in the private sector, the more involved the private sector is in the government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Had to read it a couple times, but it sounds like he's advocating for less/no government involvement in Big Insurance/Energy/Finance etc? Possibly because, you know, the free market is awesome.

I think it's a little unfair to frame this in such a simpleton way. I'm not sure anyone prefers more government involvement in the above because the government is awesome.

I mean, come on people, much of this is just the same old rehash of the same debate that has raged for many, many years (see: my first post above), except now we think everything was actually waaaaay better back in the old days when they were complaining about the exact same thing.

Here I'm inclined to agree. The debates have always been centered around a larger centralized authority vs a smaller centralized authority. With the kinds of numbers and factors involved today, one could certainly suggest the stakes are higher, but the arguments are essentially the same.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The more involved government becomes in the private sector, the more involved the private sector is in the government.

Why do you think this is some sort of inevitable outcome? Why do you feel like this is not something that could be greatly lessened, over time? Do you think this is universally true, or just true in this country?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you think this is some sort of inevitable outcome? Why do you feel like this is not something that could be greatly lessened, over time? Do you think this is universally true, or just true in this country?

What is a Corporate Lobby and what are they for? If they did not feel they could manipulate the government into legislating in a manner that would bolster their own bottom line, why would they bother? There are competing interests; if you were to lessen the influence of the Corporate Lobby, you create an imbalance between it and its competing interests such as the Union lobby. The answer IMO is not to restrict the activities of a free people, but to restrict the activities of government.

I believe this is universally true.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No shit, I didn't claim the absurd position that everything was perfect back then. God knows we probably dodged a bullet when Alexander Hamilton and his big mouth didn't.

When you're agressive, you come across as stupid. Read what I wrote, don't interpret what I wrote.

I have no idea what Alexander Hamilton event you are referring to.

Recommend me a good book regarding this period of US history.