Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 15:32:59 GMT
Aubricker-
I have no interest in defending the GOP so much as seeing that the entire system of which it is a part is called out. The issues and problems are systemic, not isolated to any particular party or group. That is how one becomes part of a corrupt system: put all of the blame on one element of the system thereby giving your implicit support to the rest of the system.
Like I said, the whole thing is otherwise not worth trying to discuss in a serious way. Because it will always come down to that one evil element. This is true whether you are talking to republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, straight advocates, gay advocates whatever.
Like I said- look for that buzzword and you'll know how honest the person is with themselves about the issues and whether or not you can have a serious discussion with them.
That kind of discussion apparently can't happen here because we can't get away from "the evil republicans".
I know whatever I say or how I say it someone will say, "Those republicans"....its why I can't talk to skinheads etc. "Those N***s" or to republicans "those democrats!" f it. Really, try going on to stormfront forums and saying "lets not talk about black people!" they won't stfu about black people. IT IS THE SAME THING.
Like i said the whole thing is going down the toilet and regardless of anything else if it ever comes to it, my stand will be with those who stand least in my way to me increasing my own options and living my own life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 15:47:38 GMT
I realize how fashionable it is among young people to indignantly declare, "A pox on both your houses," and then vote third party. The sentiment is admirable, but the results disastrous. We need only point to the election of 2000 as illustration. The Nader campaign swung the election to Bush. As a result, the US experienced the Iraq War, defended torture, and curtail the civil liberties of citizens. I was independent when I was 18 and I am independent now. Not because it was fashionable but because even in 1989, I knew the problems were systemic and not to be pinned on any one group. Yes, vote third party. My only non third party votes were once for clinton and once for bush. I regret both of them. Also, unless you would make the President King, we have an entire two houses of congress that are supposed to be just as powerful as the President in all matters including war. But whatever. You are going to continue to not talk about anything other than the evil republicans.
|
|
|
Post by axis16666 on Jul 2, 2012 17:16:50 GMT
Jeez Overdriver....don't you know the republicans ARE evil, and it's still all Bush's fault anyways??
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 2, 2012 17:39:34 GMT
Overdriver,
You are both correct and mistaken. Yes, Article I of the Constitution does make Congress the primary arm of the federal government in most respects, and the first presidents tended to defer to the whims of the legislature. However, this began to change at least as early as Andrew Jackson. 535 men and women having completing interests and belonging to conflicting parties form a rather unwieldy instrument to direct federal policy, and power drifted by default to the executive. On the issue of war, I fear I must disagree. Article II of the Constitution firmly places the direction of war and foreign policy in the hands of the president. To be sure, Congress has some power to restrain the president, notably the powers to declare war, approve treaties, and allocate funding. But keep in mind that US military forces have been engaged almost continually since the Constitution's ratification, yet Congress has declared war only five times in history.
I do not categorize Republicans as evil. Evil is a theological term, not a political one. And were I inclined to use it, it would be reserved for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and their ilk.
Review my previous post. There are many Republicans I admire and respect. However, they are not the people setting the policy driving much of the Republican Party today.
Similarly, with respect to Democrats, I am disdainful of many of their policies, and agree with none wholeheartedly.
That being said, either a Democrat or a Republican will win the upcoming election, and no number of protest votes will change that. If you look at both parties and declare them equally bad, you will end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Again, third-party votes in 2000 led the US into an unjustified invasion of Iraq, resulting in Americans becoming torturers, and cost us some measure of our civil liberties. Were the consequences worth a protest vote? I suggest the dead, the torture victims, and those who realized a loss of civil liberties would say otherwise.
Another consequence of Bush's presidency, for which Nader voters must share some responsibility, was his appointment of two very reactionary Supreme Court justices, likely to extend the pro-corporate conservative and anti-civil liberty majority of our highest court for decades to come. Equate Clinton, G. W. Bush, and Obama as much as you wish, but upon reflection, you cannot deny that the four Democratic nominees on the Court defend individual freedoms while their Republican counterparts often work to restrict your freedoms. Justice Thomas has gone so far as to opine that Americans have too many freedoms! The GOP once put forward some of the nation's greatest jurists on the Court, but now Republican judicial candidates for federal courts are subjected to a disturbing litmus test.
To use a rather extreme example of the risks born of a failure to chose sides, consider the failure of Russia's 1917 February Revolution. A liberal party with socialist leaning deposed the Czar and seized the reins of government. Unfortunately, the liberals' failures, especially their inability to bring the war with the Central Powers to a satisfactory conclusion alienated large swaths of the population. When the Bolsheviks mounted a coup seven months later, the population remained largely indifferent. Because of their failure to support what some might have described "the lesser of two evils," Russia, suffered a punishing civil war, the brutal regimes of Lenin and Stalin, numerous purges, gulags, the KKVD, and on and on. And no, I am not saying Republicans are in any way akin to Communists. I would never make such an absurd claim. I only wish to illustrate that refusal to support the better of the only viable options -- however principled the reason -- ofttimes proves mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by vorshlumpf on Jul 2, 2012 21:39:19 GMT
Come on, I'm sure you can come up with something better than 'teabaggers'. Let me give it a try.... Aubricker - (n) - [omitted] That is so much more original and certainly a funnier way to insult someone. P.S. Moderators who will want to edit this, please consider that the term teabaggers is not exactly 'G' rated. P.S.S. I hope to respond to other points in this thread. As much as I hate debating faceless people over the internet I feel compelled to argue a bit for us "extremists" on the right. But it will have to wait till I have time to devote to such an argument .... 3 days .... It is obvious you took offence to something that was written in this discussion. I hope your future response will bring clarity to your point of view, and not more reactionary attempts to insult. I'm particularly interested in hearing why you felt compelled to label yourself an 'extremist', based upon what has been said thus far. overdriver, I feel sorry for you, in a way. You seem quite bitter, and I'd hate to live life that way, myself. There is much to be bitter about, of course, but I'd rather not let that eat away at me. And I'm not saying put on rose-coloured glasses and ignore the bad things in life. In terms of what is natural or evolutionary, I recently read about a scientific study that showed that human children got more enjoyment from giving treats to others than from receiving the treats themselves. If everyone acted that way as adults, we'd truly have a better world. AuBricker, some truly interesting insights. I think you and I could have an interesting debate on the power of voting. I have studied and campaigned for electoral reform here in Canada. We may disagree with the idea of throwing away votes "to make a statement". Every person should have the power and confidence to vote for whomever they please, statement or not. To force them to take the lesser of two evils is to take away their vote. However, as much as I may bemoan the state of our voting and political party system up here, it seems much worse in the USA (where the idea of electoral reform seems as far-fetched as removing porn from the internet). Would I vote for Al Gore if I knew my choice would be the difference between having him and Bush? I guess I would. But that says nothing about the many complexities of elections and voting and what gets people out to vote. Maybe all those Nader voters wouldn't have bothered voting at all, overcome by apathy. Maybe they consider Gore as evil as Bush. Maybe, maybe... lots of maybes. - Niilo
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 2, 2012 23:07:01 GMT
Vorshlumpf,
I largely agree with you. Canada, since the election of Harper, now confronts many of the same problems which bedevil the United States.
As for the viability of third parties, I wish real options existed, but sadly they do not. We must vote in the world which exists, not the one we wish existed.
|
|
|
Post by vorshlumpf on Jul 2, 2012 23:25:06 GMT
At the risk of forever losing our chances at a better world. There, now we've both used black-and-white statements Like I said, I'm sure we could have a good debate on it. Electoral policy/reform is very[/u] complex. In some cases, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. In many, I don't. And it can be very hard to identify which specific situation fits the former or the latter.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 3, 2012 5:06:40 GMT
To be sure, there are situations where a third party vote proves meaningful. For example, Lincoln, our greatest president, was an off party candidate by our measure. The Republican Party was a new party in 1860, formed from Northern Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and the like. Only once before had Republicans nominated a candidate for president.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Jul 3, 2012 8:20:45 GMT
Tippecanoe and Tyler too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 16:27:16 GMT
Overdriver, You are both correct and mistaken. Yes, Article I of the Constitution does make Congress the primary arm of the federal government in most respects, and the first presidents tended to defer to the whims of the legislature. However, this began to change at least as early as Andrew Jackson. 535 men and women having completing interests and belonging to conflicting parties form a rather unwieldy instrument to direct federal policy, and power drifted by default to the executive. On the issue of war, I fear I must disagree. Article II of the Constitution firmly places the direction of war and foreign policy in the hands of the president. To be sure, Congress has some power to restrain the president, notably the powers to declare war, approve treaties, and allocate funding. But keep in mind that US military forces have been engaged almost continually since the Constitution's ratification, yet Congress has declared war only five times in history. I will not ever argue for the increase or the justification in any increase of executive power no matter what, no matter who is in office or what party they belong to. The slow and steady increase of power to a position filled by only ONE MAN is by definition the slow and steady march towards dictatorship. Ok, then, the "bad guys". Even Hitler wasn't "evil" he was just a masterful bureaucrat. You realize the holocaust wasn't even about the jews though the jews got the worst of it. It was about taking a cause that was popular at the time to an absolute extreme and riding that to the height of power. That popular cause, btw, was blaming everything on the jews, aka antisemitism. Thats what people dont get, that is the lesson people refuse to learn. The lesson is not "don't hate the jews, dont be a racist", the lesson is do not take a group of people and blame everything on them, make them the "bad guys". Racism is simply a subset of that broader, collective, social retardation. Sure some of them people are ok, but as a group, especially now, they are bad. That sounds real familiar. I am not going to get into some stupid thing where I have to count and line by line quote every single bad thing you said about republicans, how you feel about those republicans is evident in your posts here. That baby went down the drain a long time ago and it is pathetic how both loayl dems and reps try to save it. Don't start this propaganda please. I see what you did there. You just pooped out something I am not going to step in. The natural temptation in a debate like this is to counter with how protest votes also lead to democrats being elected which resulted in equally bad consequences- but that would be me arguing in favor of or against one or the other political side. They are both one head of two headed monster. One administration simply carries on the policies of the previous administration- see iraq/afghanistan, the bailouts, southern border gun walking operations etc. Here we go again, more Bush bashing. It gets soooo tired. I am not getting into a favor one side against the other argument. If you want me to make up a list or horrible decisions from both sides that would be easy enough. No, we need to hit rock bottom, and voting for the clowns they put in front of us only makes that happen slower and more painfully. It will eventually come to a real fight here in America, and given that OUR revolutionary base principles as a culture are exactly counter to the kind of "enlightened despotism" that lead to the late 19th, early 20th century totalitarianism in Europe; my bet is that at the worst the fact that we are a fractured people will become materially manifest, at best we would end up with true nationalistic classical liberalism at the federal level. Either way, Phil has it right (No more of this, Butchy): Millions are going to the ballot box and spending endless hours engaged in the pop-political soap-opera. Many other millions are spending their time at the range, training, preparing. My bet is that the next vote cast by quite a few will by through the barrel of a gun. That is enough from me.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 9, 2012 6:35:56 GMT
Overdriver,
Fine. Constitutional democratic republics are simply window dressing on the fast-track to hell. Sigh. What do you propose as an alternative?
And as you anticipate the utopia which will spontaneously erupt into being when we hit "rock bottom," recall what happened to Russia (1917), Germany (1933), and Cambodia (1975) when these societies reached the goal you eagerly envision seeing the US attain. When I was a young man, I had cause to spend a brief period of time in Mogadishu. It totally cured me of any fantasies of believing good can arise from a people hitting rock bottom. Such people are rarely thoughtful, democratic, well-fed, educated, or idealistic. When nations hit rock bottom, people suffer. The question is no longer which candidate you want to vote far. It now all boils down to whether you are among those lined up against the wall or are you a member of the firing squad.
Furthermore, you know Western democracies are destined to become dictatorships? Really? How do you know this? Please provide me with a few examples of wealthy constitutional democracies practicing universal suffrage succumbing to one-man authoritarian rule. For that matter, please name two. Name one. I will wait as it will take you a while to find one.
Human progress is rarely born headlong from violent revolution. Far more often it is the result of a nation's gradual evolution, a slow process of two steps forward and one step back. My ideal is a society in which the citizenry strive to minimize the number of steps taken backward.
I must confess to some amusement by your referring to my explanation of my political convictions as "propaganda." But I can assure you the victims of war, torture, and oppression take a more pragmatic view. Such dismissive rhetoric carries the day in Cloud Cuckoo Land and in undergraduate philosophy classes, but the rest of humanity must live in the world as it exists, not the world we want to be.
ADDED: Do you like irony? Why do I ask? You go into hysteria because I criticize current trends within the Republican Party. You haven't clearly articulated why it was wrong for me to do so, but you express some indignation that I would do so.
Now, here's the irony. After throwing a hissy fit over my suggestion that one political party might be more deserving that the other in the upcoming election, you condemn certain political groups of setting the stage for a one-man autocratic state.
What is this special insight you possess into all things political so that, while the rest of us practice folly for offering political criticism, you are akin to Moses descending Mount Sinai with divine truths?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2012 19:28:11 GMT
Overdriver, Fine. Constitutional democratic republics are simply window dressing on the fast-track to hell. Sigh. What do you propose as an alternative? Constitutional democratic republics are fine, they just occasionally need stripped entirely bare of the statutory chains that bonds them in endless knots of bureaucratic BS, and of the incumbents and political establishment that put those chains into place. Jefferson was quite right about that tree of liberty. I don't anticipate any utopia, I anticipate a bloody fight- I don't think I could have made that more clear. But the only way for new healthy growth to even have a fighting chance is for the old rotten growth to be removed. BTW Russia, Germany, and Cambodia have FUNDAMENTALLY different cultures not only from each other but most especially from the US. Who was the equivalent of Tom Paine in Russia, Germany, Cambodia? Where are their federalist papers? The revolutions for individual freedom? WE ARE NOT THEM. If you were in Somalia in the past 30 years you would know without any doubt that it is not comparable in any way shape or form to the US. And not because our buildings are taller or we have running water in most households, but because we are simply a highly evolved culture and they are not. Power in Somalia means control of food via lethal force, power in the US means self-reliance. On second thought, some of us here in the US DO wish to control the food via lethal force and others wish to simply be as self-sufficient as possible. And here is where it only begins to transcend the two-party political paradigm you are a fan of: Food Sovereignty. Those who wish to simply be self-sufficient and left alone and those who wish to control others are the forces that will clash for real much as you and I are clashing here in this thread. In Somalia, the forces who wish to control other have won because Somalia lacks the core cultural premise of self-reliance and a hatred of authoritarianism. We do not lack that. At least enough of us don't. I did not say western democracies are necessarily destined to become dictatorships, I said the more power given to an executive governmental position, the closer that nation moves towards dictatorship. The American Revolution. We are IN AMERICA after all, aren't we? Not Somalia or Russia or even France. When you use the absolute worst examples of what you do not like to pound on it, that is propaganda. What I am saying about both parties being equally bad is something that millions of Americans already know. The fact that you do not know this and that you take my critique and hatred of the current two-headed establishment and the partisanship that it brings, and instead think I am flipping sht over something republican or not shows a lot. I have clearly argued against the clear and intense bias you show towards one party and against the other. I have done this because I think you are being fooled, are drinking the establishment kool-aid by the barrel, and are reeled in hook-line and sinker. Speaking of irony, the "us against them" mentality that you so passionately advocate is exactly what will drive the whole country over the edge. It is what I am arguing against. But I know the argument is futile, as shown by your posts. I am Independent and will remain so despite the fact that in being independent Republicans will often label me a democrat and Democrats will often label me a republican. I have a side, it is my side. My families side. It is even your side, but you reject that in favor of siding with some anti-this or anti-that group-think. We are both Americans (right?), so you leave me alone to do my thing and I will leave you alone to do your thing. Live and let live, right? Or no? Is there some kind of massive centralized system that I have to adhere to? No thanks. Not for me.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 10, 2012 21:25:05 GMT
Overdriver,
Jefferson was a wise man, but he was wrong on many things. He was wrong on race, he was wrong on J. Adams, he was wrong on the French Revolution, and he was wrong on frequent bloodshed being necessary for freedom.
You mistake the primary factors separating our revolution from the failed revolutions of other nations. It was certainly not the Federalist Papers. They were written long after the revolution was won. They were drafted over the second half of 1787 in order to influence those voting on whether or not New York state should adopt the Constitution. And while certainly influential, they are not canon in American corpus juris. As for a thirst for personal liberty being unique to or stronger in America? You must be jesting. Have you ever read the Rights of Man? Do you really believe suppressed peoples have no hunger for liberty, and that, rather than military autocrats, keep them captive? I suggest you examine their history and read their literature before you so blithely dismiss their desire for freedom.
No, you miss the two primary factors in which our revolution differed from most others. 1) Our revolution was fought against a foreign power, Great Britain. The French, Russian, Cuban, and most other revolutions were civil wars, brutal and vicious, resulting in lasting and irresolvable hatreds. 2) Our Founding Fathers and the Framers inherited and continued the tradition of English Common Law already being practiced in the colonies. It gave the new nation a settled and universally agreed upon legal system with which to settle disputes.
You missed how easily our revolution could have followed the French model, and, like Saturn, devour its own children. In 1783, officers of the Continental Army urged George Washington to lead his forces against the Continental Congress and establish himself as dictator. What if he had not rejected their entreaties? During the Quasi-War with France, the US began building its army in anticipation of invasion. Alexander Hamilton drew up plans to use the new army to invade the Southern states and placing Jefferson's Republican followers under military arrest. What if President Adams had not wisely adverted the crisis?
Do you think the early Americans had some special insight into freedom? Native Americans and slaves might beg to differ? I am reminded of the waggish words of Samuel Johnson dismissing colonial claims: "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" Even when I was a child, black citizens were frequently murdered across much of the South simply for trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote. During WW II, American military officers in England often expressed exasperation at England's lack of Jim Crow laws. You should also note that most of those "less enlightened" nations you disparage ended slavery long before the US did and with far less bloodshed. In the famous Somersett's Case of 1772, Lord Mansfield's ruling abolished slavery in England and Scotland. The last slave held in the extended British Empire was peacefully freed in 1838.
On a different note, I am dismayed by your assertion that you see the need for bloodshed to reestablish your freedoms. This leads to an interesting question: What lacking liberty do you miss so desperately that you would sacrifice your children to a miserable violent death in combat to acquire? Or do you intend that the rest of use lose our children instead for those elusive rights?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 21:30:33 GMT
Overdriver, Jefferson was a wise man, but he was wrong on many things. He was wrong on race, he was wrong on J. Adams, he was wrong on the French Revolution, and he was wrong on frequent bloodshed being necessary for freedom. You mistake the primary factors separating our revolution from the failed revolutions of other nations. It was certainly not the Federalist Papers. They were written long after the revolution was won. They were drafted over the second half of 1787 in order to influence those voting on whether or not New York state should adopt the Constitution. And while certainly influential, they are not canon in American corpus juris. As for a thirst for personal liberty being unique to or stronger in America? You must be jesting. Have you ever read the Rights of Man? Do you really believe suppressed peoples have no hunger for liberty, and that, rather than military autocrats, keep them captive? I suggest you examine their history and read their literature before you so blithely dismiss their desire for freedom. There is a very clear and well-defined process of differentiation that continues to occur over the course of history- to say there is no direct ontological link between the substance of the federalist papers and the core reasons for the revolution its self is to be absolutely blind to the ongoing differentiation and to lay out an absolutely revisionist and false historical narrative. I think many people have no hunger for personal liberty: that is true multiculturalism. Guess what? Not everyone is us or thinks or believes what we do. To think that they do is arrogant and short sighted in the least. ANY core value results from cultural evolution- the hunger for personal liberty being a core-value, many many cultures have simply never evolved it. Whats up with this absurd homogenization you wish to see the world as? Those are factors but not primary factors. The revolution was fought for the same central reason why so many came to the new world in the first place : personal liberty. Across Europe those seeking personal liberty came to the new world. As a result, in America we naturally highly value personal liberty. The same arguments and fundamental differences in values between you and I, have existed in America from the start. I simply say "live and let live, leave me alone". Those who feel likewise won out at first but after many generations the other side is becoming dominant. France went ape-sht after the revolution because their revolution was simply a class-war, not a revolution for personal liberty. Yes I do think the early Americans had some special insight into freedom, American Freedom, how could they not, they were the founders of America after all. That is like saying if I think Ford had some special insight into mass-production. Of course he did! Certainly others had similar ideas, but Ford mastered the process. As far as slavery is concerned- that was the established system, and on top of getting separate and distinct colonies together enough to actually wage a revolution against the worlds strongest empire, and then getting them to agree on a constitution- pushing slavery as a top-tier issue would have been too much. None the less, many of the founding fathers were against slavery on principle and freed hundreds of their own slaves in their own life times. If YOU actually read what they had written and done in their lives you would see this. That is not a belief I hold as a principle but rather what I see as an inevitable reality. It is foolish to believe that any political system can last for eternity without eventually needing a revolution to re-establish personal freedom. Humanity is not immune to the basic laws of thermodynamics and entropy eventually settles in regardless of what kind of system is in place. As far as bloodshed and democratic ideals, how is this working out for ya: Chicago police sergeant: "Tribal warfare" on the streets;275 people have been killed in the city so far this year.
|
|
|
Post by AuBricker on Jul 13, 2012 2:08:56 GMT
Ah, where to start.
Unintentionally or otherwise, you misinterpret my comments. I stated no causes for the Revolution. I merely offered two reasons why our colonial struggle did not disintegrate into chaos. You boil the struggle for national independence down to nothing more than a simple desire for independence is to ignore the very real economic, social, political, and environmental factors dividing the colonies with Mother England. Of course, liberty was a factor but you overstate it. Compare, as much as possible, the status of similarly-situated Englishmen and Americans after the war. Was a American tavern-keeper, artisan, or domestic servant more free than his or her English counterparts? Of course, frontier dwellers gained new freedoms resulting from the demise of the Proclamation of 1763, but those freedoms took the form of being able to now oppress, murder, and rob Native Americans in western lands, now that the British prohibitions against incursions on Native American lands were removed.
You can also overstate the liberty-loving tendencies of the first English settlers. Some, to be sure, such as the Quakers, had a legacy of promoting freedom, but certain not all. Consider the Puritans. The Puritans did not sail to America because they sought religious freedoms. They were free to practice their religion as they wished while living in the Netherlands, their first place of refugee after leaving England. They came to America because they objected to other people being free to practice their religions as well. When the Puritans ruled England, they considered it their duty to deprive others of their liberty, even going so far as to outlaw theater and bowling. In their American settlements, no true freedom existed. For example, your economic status determined which clothes you could wear. Common people were not allowed to wear silver buckles among other things. And do I need mention they hang Quakers and "witches?" They were also fond of sending the militia to arrest citizens of other settlements suspected of indulging in ungodly activities such as dancing around maypoles. Of course, they would sometimes shoot Native Americans, but only because they were "Children of Satan," as evidence by their love of the wilderness.
Many of the earlier settlers certainly would have possessed a love of liberty, but being indentured servants, they had none.
And there is slavery again. You claim the Founding Fathers hated slavery, and yes, some did. But they did not hate it enough to do anything about it. Washington hated slavery, but not enough to free his own until after his death. (Actually, his will freed them after his wife's death. They were freed before her death, but not by the result of anyone's good will) The British surrender at Yorktown was delayed until the British were forced to agree to their black fighters being returned to slavery. While the Framers were too self-conscious to use the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, they did manage to include a fugitive slave provision, requiring the return of runaway slaves. US elementary children learn of Patrick Henry's famous utterance, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I believe they should also learn of his Anti-Federalist activities, urging Virginians to reject the Constitution because, "They'll free your niggers." Jefferson the godfather of American independence, sold his surplus slaves to set his table with expensive imported wines. Madison, primary author of the Bill of Rights, depended on the forced labor his black male, female, and child slaves over the entire course of his long life. When, in their later years, Jefferson and Madison, alarmed by the rising tensions over slavery, condemned, not the slaveholders, but the abolitionists. Ah, those freedom-loving Founders were wacky! By the way, come up with a list of the leading Founding Fathers who freed their slaves while they were still alive. I'm betting you can't name five easily recognizable men. To even name that many, you would have to list the obscure and little-known. (Franklin, the only famous Founding Father to free his slaves, did so only in his old age. At the time, he owned all of two slaves. Whoopie Do!)
Nearly all black Americans prior to 1865 possessed no personal liberty; they were literally chattel property, and hundreds of thousands of Southern citizens were willing to throw away their lives, lands, and honor to maintain that status. A amused when when I hear people whine about what they idiotically describe as socialism. Do you know when the largest government confiscation of private property occurred within the United States? It occurred in 1863-65 while nearly four-million pieces of property were declared free human beings as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Conservatives of their era whined non-stop about this infringement of their property rights. They identified their liberty to own other human being as a quintessential freedom.
There are many individuals from other nations to be found on HG. Ask them if their love of and devotion to freedom is, in their opinion, more primitive or less profound as yours. I suspect you do many citizens an injustice. We are not talking about the Taliban here. We are talking about the average citizen of France, Germany, the UK, and Norway. They may, in some cases, define their fundamental rights differently, but I suspect they value freedom deeply indeed.
I am confused by your saying it makes no difference rather Democrats or Republicans win the election.
I am not a Christian. The Republican Party in my home state is striving to remove funding from secular public schools, diverting it into religious private schools. Other conservative states are watching the inevitable legal challenges with an eye to drafting similar legislation of their own. The national Republican leadership seeks to include creationism in public school curriculum and return prayer to public classrooms. The majority of Democratic politicians oppose this.
A number of influential Republicans, including several governors, house members, federal and state judges, and one (perhaps two) Supreme Court Justices insists the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 is unconstitutional. I know of no Democratic office holder holding this view.
Rejected Republican SCOTUS Robert Bork is currently advising Republican nominee Romney. Conservatives rallied to Bork's side when Democrats defeated his nomination, accusing Democrats of playing politics. Why did I, like many others, contact my senators and urge them to vote against Bork? Bork insisted, among other things, that segregation was dandy, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were unconstitutional, and Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided. In addition, he claims the First Amendment does not protect scientific and literary freedom of speech. I need not add that the setting Democratic nominate seeks no advice that this man can offer.
The Republican Party has signaled its willingness to curtail the reproductive rights of women. A number of Republicans have denigrated women who use birth control and have even introduced laws allowing employers to discover if a woman uses birth control for non-medical reasons, and then dismiss her. It has even been suggested that states again be allowed to ban contraceptives. Republicans have gone to court to prevent 10, 11, and 12 year old rape victims from having abortions. People with such views are excluded from the Democratic leadership.
I have a disabling illness. Republicans argue that my insurance company should be allowed to drop me as a result of a per-existing condition. Furthermore, so long as it retains me, it should be allow to restrict covered treatments to annual and lifetime caps. Until recent, insurance companies frequently refused coverage to newborn infants outside a certain weight range. The Republican plan calls for a return to those days. The Democrat Health Care Act has ended these practices, and Democratic leaders are striving to protect these reforms.
I could go on, but you get the point. Can you maintain that, despite this, there exists no differences between the parties in the upcoming election? Get real.
You dismiss my knowledge of history as inadequate. In this, I agree with you. Socrates greatest truth was his discovery that true wisdom begins with recognizing one's own ignorance. I've spent enough time in academia surrounded by brilliant men and women to realize that I have very real limits. I am by no means an idiot, and I did learn enough to justify the conference of degrees, but I am a beginner compared to many of the people I've known. I note I've picked up one truism in my studies you missed, namely the folly and danger of believing human civilizations conform to the laws which govern physical sciences. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot believed themselves to have discovered the scientific truths governing human interactions, and many millions paid for their fecklessness. The motivations and behavior of individual humans are frequently damn near impossible to predict. Anyone who claims they can accurately predict the distant course of nations is being silly. Hell, the CIA can be rather good, but they couldn't even predict the overthrow of the Shah and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. Did you foresee either? Yet you can accurately forecast a nation's history? If so, please recommend a few choice stock picks for me.
Finally, you note that no government lasts forever. Doh! Nothing lasts forever. In a few billion years, the universe shell itself cease to exist, either extending endless in frozen lifelessness into the voids or collapsing again into a singularity. But long earlier, humanity will be dead and forgotten and earth itself will have been cleansed of any remaining life by the expanding sun. And, no nation, although not part of any natural system, can exist for long by the grand scheme of things. No, culture and society does not go on forever. But so long as we live in them, we are obliged to try and maintain them, improve them, and bring under their protective umbrella those like the unfortunate Chicago victims. Their deaths do not mean civilization should be abandoned; it shows we must do better. How is it you proclaim such a shinning vision of early America despite it slaughter of Native Americans and treatment of slaves, yet see a much smaller number of gang-warfare victims as proof that we should give up on civilization?
Are you content to enjoy the fruits of civilization made possible by soldiers, teachers, police-officers, and countless other faceless individuals while insisting that you owe nothing back in return? When civilization finally caves, it will be in part, I predict, the result of individuals who proclaim, "I've got mine, suckers! You're on your own."
|
|