Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Have I told you that I hate liars? Well I do.

And throw in some self congratulatory drivel and spew insults to build yourself up but hey, let's not worry about minor details.

No shit! Stop trying to build strawmen. The amendment process is part of the constitution too. The whole point is that the rules can be changed if the times demand it but it should not be something done lightly. In other words, if something does need to be changed, then go through the proper process. Don't just break rules because you don't like them and that's what governments get away with too often. THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that you jump to this conclusion says to me that you want to see a loon and nothing more so don't try and tell me that you're all fair minded because you're not convincing me of that with your actions here.

Strawman, where does it say that libertarianism opposes amendments? Show me, right now.

And you say I spew insult instead of real debate! At least I have had the decency to keep to criticizing your arguments and questioning your tactics instead of petty name-calling. I'll also say that just because I can politely contribute, doesn't mean I have to grant you a level of respect you consistently fail to earn. Further, you jump to the to the dubious, raving argument that because I misconstrued your ill-presented case, I must be willfully building strawman arguments. You could correct me before assuming I am willfully shaping your arguments to meet my own ends. You never cease to disregard or misinterpret my arguments, but I am more than willing to clarify them before screaming strawman to give you the chance to respond to real debate that you don't seem so eager to accept.

I can accept and put aside some of the criticism for the amendment process, but that does nothing to address the issue of judicial review and interpretation I brought up as means of understanding intent to address modern issues unthinkable during the drafting of the Constitution. There is the freedom to interpret some broad clauses in the Constitution to pursue policy that does not require explicitly amending it. This was expected, and there was oversight put in place to insure that the legislature and president did not overstep their bounds in interpreting their responsibilities and limits of power. This has been the role of the Supreme Court, ultimately, to decide whether laws are in keeping with the standards established in the Constitution and does not infringe upon rights otherwise enumerated to other entities. Despite so many attempts to inject a ideological slant, the Court has a pretty good track record of holding when implied powers are, in fact, constitutional or not. Granted, it has not been perfect, but I wouldn't think anyone should expect it to be. I'd definitely take the judgement of an experienced legal scholar reviewing and clarifying precedence over someone who screams, "my narrow, literal interpretation is the only correct one and I'm gonna try to ignore your arguments for disagreeing!"

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Strawman, I said no such thing. Don't take my statements and extremify them. That's intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

That's how it was for many centuries before Roosevelt completely undermined it with his New Deal nonsense. Before all that, all government did was keep the peace and otherwise leave people alone. Government's powers were kept restricted so that it did it's job as the constitution described and no further.

I don't understand what other interpretation I can make here. What is it? You didn't mean what you said? Backpedaling? Is the statement "the government didn't do anything unconstitutional between 1789 and 1932" an extremification of "the government didn't do anything unconstitutional before Roosevelt?" Is it unconstitutional for "government to keep the peace and otherwise leave people alone?"

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

I'm going to make sure I'm clear here. Are you honestly suggesting the constitution has been overall upheld to the present day?

I don't buy your contention that people, for the most part, are ignoring it and getting away with it. Apathy, misunderstanding, and differing interpretations are the biggest challenges I can see. There is tremendous respect for the foundations of our government, sometimes to a fault, despite those problems. I do think people do try to uphold it, but there are missteps along the way that, thankfully, can be corrected and are always being corrected so long as people attempt to be knowledgeable and responsible in their role as citizens (which I have made the case is disappointingly lacking, though still existant).

It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to undermine the framework of our government instead of taking terms like "promote the general Welfare" or "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" to include quite a bit more than you do.

I doubt I'm gonna change your mind, you've made it clear you are too stubborn, arrogant, self-righteous, intellectually lazy, and deceitful to bring anyone closer to the truth through debate or introspection. But I guess I can settle with letting others see that your arguments are poor and your ideology can be problematic.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

You two are fucking hilarious. Seriously. I won't side with either of you or even participate in your discussion but watching you two communicate is hysterical. Neither is capable of not pushing the other's buttons.

Originally Posted by kia252

Humor aside, what's you standard for what "matters." I hope I'm not out of line pulling from your context to think you mean military and economic power are what makes a nation "matter." While this is not to say that those are not important, certainly there has been tremendous social, cultural, and scientific progress in many countries that rival the U.S. even if they may not have military might or wealth we do. If we're such a great nation, then a little humility and respect for others shouldn't be beyond our grasp

Well said, my friend. It's the attitudes that have resulted in the US being universally hated. Most nations maintain friendly relations with them for economic purposes. Aside from that though, it's countries like Canada that stay as fucking far away as possible from the American model.

I'm not even going to touch on the notion the United States is an accepting nation because it's delusional to think as much.

Ever thought that the United States might just not matter to the rest of the world either? Sure, an embrago on all things American would send Canada for a loop intially. That's what's great about not being the most hated nation in the world though; we have other wealthy, progressive allies that would back us up. The world would keep spinning without "y'all", believe it or not. That's another reason the United States are universally hated - they believe otherwise.

European nations may not "matter" to the United States economically, but you'll find dissention if you say as much around a American pancreatic cancer survivor who only found effective treatment in Switzerland. The concept the United States is a particularly innovative nation is crap. It's a country with enough people annd wealth to fund a lot of experimentation so conceptual output is huge. In comparison to the human progress seen elsewhere to scale though, the United States falls real short on new, effective ideas.

The idea the United States is a particularly generous nation is... hilarious. Look at American national debt. The United States is happy to take far more than it gives. The fact they have the finances to be helpful and occasionally chose to make a kerfuffle out of doing so ("Look, guys! We're nice!") does not equate to generosity. It equates to really a big PR problem with the rest of the world. But I guess we're just jealous! That's the real reason the rest of the world hates the US. Can someone teach me how to be American? Please? (That was me pretending to have my head up my ass.)

It's to any nation's detriment to deem smaller, less wealthy nations without merit or unimportant. I have a very mild accent. The difference in how people behave towards me in Europe when I have a Canadian flag pinned to my backpack or not speaks to this.

[LOD]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

*chorus* Jiiii-had JOOOOOOOOOOOE!

...Sorry, I had to. But at least now I know it's out of my system. And knowing is half the battle.





I'll second that. It really bugs me that so many damn things are in Spanish these days. Best T-shirt I ever saw: "Welcome to America. Now SPEAK ENGLISH!"

What gets me is these people for the most part don't even bother to learn it.

I at least took four years of french before taking a trip to Paris and the country side.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

At least I have had the decency to keep to criticizing your arguments and questioning your tactics instead of petty name-calling.

you've made it clear you are too stubborn, arrogant, self-righteous, intellectually lazy, and deceitful to bring anyone closer to the truth through debate or introspection

I do believe I just told you that I hate liars.

And seriously, stop building yourself up. If you have to tell me how great and wonderful you are, you're not that great.

I don't buy your contention that people, for the most part, are ignoring it and getting away with it.

For starters, do the words "Patriot act" mean anything to you?

How about the war on drugs? Show me where they get the constitutional authority to tell people what they can and can't put into their own bodies.

Banning gay marriage, prohibiting two people to engage in a contract to which there is voluntary, mutual consent. Last I checked, constitution says gov can't do that.

Censorship, how much spin does it take to say this doesn't conflict with the first ammendment?

Gun control, it's pretty clear where it stands there too.

Illegal prostitution, why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away for free? More to the point, isn't this another clear violation?

I can go on but give those a spin.

[LOD]

Well Hawkeye we agree once again, oddly O_o

The FCC is unconstitutional!!!!

[Hooded_Miracle]

You know what? This seems like a bunch of walls trying to ram into each other, with one wall trying to keep the Kool-Aid man from busting through only to crumble at the foundations because of it.

Also, I'm just going to say that America is awesome, but I ain't saying it due to patriotism, but because we, you know, helped out the rest of the fucking world.

Oh, and the American military invented Duct Tape. That makes the USA's army the best. ('_')/

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Also, I'm just going to say that America is awesome, but I ain't saying it due to patriotism, but because we, you know, helped out the rest of the fucking world.

In some cases yes, in others no but that's for another time.

You're still good guys overall and I like having you as neighbors. But really, you need to start reminding your politicians that they work for you, NOT the other way around.

[DalekSec]

Originally Posted by Hooded_Miracle

You know what? This seems like a bunch of walls trying to ram into each other, with one wall trying to keep the Kool-Aid man from busting through only to crumble at the foundations because of it.

Also, I'm just going to say that America is awesome, but I ain't saying it due to patriotism, but because we, you know, helped out the rest of the fucking world.

Oh, and the American military invented Duct Tape. That makes the USA's army the best. ('_')/

DITTO!!!!

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

I do believe I just told you that I hate liars.

And seriously, stop building yourself up. If you have to tell me how great and wonderful you are, you're not that great.

So, you assault my character, then claim I am building myself up when defending it. That's a catch-22 and it's dishonest bullshit. Why do you use it and let so many other points of contention fall by the wayside?

Petty name-calling is an act of unjustifiably referring to an opponent in a derogative term like liar, dogmatist, and big mouth to belittle them and their argument. I feel comfortable saying that I was describing attributes I have derived from your debate tactics not because you disagree with me, but as a matter of how you disagree with me in voicing a real concern. I have encouraged you to consider other viewpoints and have found myself met with hostility and repeated misrepresentation and omission of my arguments. I advised against these, and it just got worse. I genuinely do feel that you are wronging other in trying to proving yourself right and the reasons I listed are why.

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

For starters, do the words "Patriot act" mean anything to you?

How about the war on drugs? Show me where they get the constitutional authority to tell people what they can and can't put into their own bodies.

Banning gay marriage, prohibiting two people to engage in a contract to which there is voluntary, mutual consent. Last I checked, constitution says gov can't do that.

Censorship, how much spin does it take to say this doesn't conflict with the first ammendment?

Gun control, it's pretty clear where it stands there too.

Illegal prostitution, why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away for free? More to the point, isn't this another clear violation?

I can go on but give those a spin.

I will argue that people do believe that some of these issues fall into the realm of constitutional powers, whether I like it or not.

Some think the Patriot Act provides safeguards for the common defense in an age in which we are under attack but secretive rogue agents instead of nations. Of course, the act is being challenged for unchecked powers that defy principles of personal liberty and property.
Some argue that there is grounds to infer that government can constitutionally take a role in prohibiting the exchange of dangerous, consumable substances in promoting the general welfare and with power derived from the Commerce Clause, even to the point of prohibiting possession to prevent exchange. This is debated as a breach of state's rights (see California) and wrongheaded outlaw of innocuous or even helpful products to the benefit of noone.

Some argue that marriage, despite it's adoption as a civil institution enumerated governmental rights, is still an important religious institution that some feel government trounces upon in changing the definition. The opposition that has been successful so far in reviewing the constitutionality of such bans claims that government does, indeed, not have a right to interfere in a civil contract of mutual consent and that allowing expanded meaning of the civil institution in no way mandates the religious practice of affirming a limited scope of the institution.

The freedom of speech is not absolute, it does not guarantee the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime with government response. There are multiple scenarios in which it has been found that there are cases in which the speech can be limited without burdening the freedom of speech like yelling "Fire" in a crowded room, perjury, or obscenity in public (the point of contention here). Now, the electronic spectrum has been commissioned as public property under the control of the federal government since it is inherently interstate. It is licensed for commercial use, but with restrictions on things like obscenity as the medium is still inherently public. This standard has been challenged and consistently upheld as constitutional.

I think the argument for gun control is that the right to keep and bear arms is not completely unrestrained and that practices like limiting free access to certain weaponry, tacking weaponry, and mandating safety courses for keeping certain weaponry and bearing it in certain ways do not place an unnecessary burden on the right while serving the public good. Of course, there are argument that it can go too far an unduly restrict the basic right.

I think basic anti-prostitution laws only exist at a state level and likely have bases in maintaining public order and regulation of intrastate commerce.

All that said, I think I've pointed out that there are constitutional contentions on both sides of most of these issues. Each side thinks they're right and neither really has the place to say the other is wrong and dismiss it. In keeping with the Constitution, the decision on which side is correct on a matter of constitutionality must be decided by the Supreme Court, which is the course often still being taking in addressing the contentious points you raise.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

You're still good guys overall and I like having you as neighbors. But really, you need to start reminding your politicians that they work for you, NOT the other way around.

Hey! Something we can agree on! People here do need to get their shit together and hold politicians responsible.

Though, we may differ on what we believe what we should expect those politicians, once they are made accountable, to do, at least it's something.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Hell, even I can uphold that: Americans are overall good. I haven't had any more trouble with Americans on an individual basis than I have had with Canadians or the Dutch or Malaysians. I do not trust the American government though nor do I trust the American population to think critically regarding the expectations they have of their politicians. It's not something they've done historically.

There are so many democrats that accuse anyone who challenges the president's choices of being anti-America. Looking out for the best interest of one's nation is never anti-American. At the same time, the Republican party should be ashamed of what they welcomed with open arms: Sarah Palin. While the rest of the world stared, slack-jawed, the vast majority of the Republican party argued she was qualified despite knowing this woman was picked for everything but her qualifications.

What's the worst that could happen if every American treated presidential candidates like humans, not gods, and let go of the team "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality? Being honest with one's self, though it can be uncomfortable, isn't a bad thing.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by Hooded_Miracle

Oh, and the American military invented Duct Tape. That makes the USA's army the best. ('_')/

Ah, duct tape. Just like the force. It's got a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.