Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[DalekSec]

I too would be VERY cautious at thinking man has taken the place of the divine and while I am not so daft as to attempt to define or , more foolishly, endeavor to confine the divine to any flawed definition on my part, I do question the ability of man alone being capable of defining morality in an effective manner without some sense of a “Higher Power” that he might have to answer to. After all, forgoing the mystical, it becomes so easy to rationalize anything in the name of “The public good”.

No, I am not saying “Obey God’s Law”. Not by a long shot. I do not even claim to know what “God’s law” is beyond the words of men nor do I really accept the idea of monotheism.


Again, more a matter of philosophical musing than logic.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Absolutely, and the fact the faithful believe gawd is expemt from verification of any kind is blatant evidence of this blind faith and lack of skepticism. When someone isn't skeptical about matters of reality like the government, shit gets dangerous.

[DalekSec]

That is actually rather well put R.B. Faith is, just that, faith. If man had proof of God(s) that was irrefutable, what would be the point? We would be pets without any free will and being “Good” would not be a challenging matter of discipline and introspection.

[Sephie]

All people who's post's are irrelevant to the post above them are secretly Dick Cheney.

[qzar9999]

Rachel, unless I missed some really major development in the world--

That ideal government you describe? The one that's equal to its subjects and not elevated above them? The one that's just and cooperative, and not some "old boys' club with a private agenda?" It doesn't exist. And, owing largely to human nature, it never will.

[OhZone]

Whatever you say, Mr. Cheney! lulz Just kiddin.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Kia: Until you actually put a claim on the table, save your keys some wear and don't bother posting. A long series of "you're wrong because I say so" and peppered with insults isn't worth reading. Better yet, grow a pair and try answering the question that I notice nobody ever touches.

No, it is not blind, anti government rants. It's based on evidence which you repeatedly refuse to even address, thus reinforcing my accusations of dogmatism on your part. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were advising yourself and not me. I make real arguments that refute any ground you stand on and all I get out of you is screaming the same points while plugging your ears.

I refute all your hard-line Libertarian malarkey point by point with rationale, and become ever annoyed and ever disrespectful when you rarely respond and claim that you must be right in the ever-increasing mountain of undisputed arguments made against you. If you don't want to be called a intellectual sloth and coward, stop acting like one. Case in point, my refutation of your comparison stands, and you have shown that you would rather ignore it and would pretend I am the fool here by trying to displace your piss poor qualities onto me.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

If I didn't know any better

Believe me, I arrived at that conclusion a long time ago.

You didn't refute jack. Of course I'd rather ignore you. You haven't got anything to contribute. No evidence, no examples and not even so much as a nod to the questions posed to you. You just arbitrarily crown yourself victor for no reason, making you the winner in your own mind alone.

And yes, once again. You refuse to answer the question. I'm taking that as an "I don't know but I'm not man enough to admit it" answer.

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Rachel, unless I missed some really major development in the world--

That ideal government you describe? The one that's equal to its subjects and not elevated above them? The one that's just and cooperative, and not some "old boys' club with a private agenda?" It doesn't exist. And, owing largely to human nature, it never will.

Actually, your constitution was made as a safeguard against that. The big problem is people ignoring it. It's not impossible. 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.

Right now, you're following in the same footsteps that led the empire of Rome to ruin in the end. Can people wise up in time to avoid going down that road? We'll see

What kind of government do libertarians want? It's very simple: If it's not in the constitution, you don't do it. End of story, no exceptions.

[monkat]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

It's very simple: If it's not in the constitution, you don't do it. End of story, no exceptions.

Call me unamerican, but I'm not one to believe that the constitution is absolutely perfect. It's a document, written by men, no different than any other in the world, with the exception of it's believed importance. There are many things that are put in there on purpose, that may not have even been what the founding fathers wanted, simply because it would not come to be if it wasn't in there - the role of president as a prime example - it was put in for the (newly-adopted) Americans that supported the king and/or a monarchy. Don't forget, as well, that times change. The problems that existed in the Americas in the 17-1800s are much different than the ones we face today.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Amendments to the American Constitution make great sense. Times do change and the legitimacy of certain elements of the Constitution have lost their meaning. Ideas like only natural born Americans can serve as POTUS are upheld for tradition's sake. There is no longer any concern that, appointing someone with American citizenship, born in the UK, will result in the British Empire overtaking the USA. By upholding those traditions, a lot of fantastic Americans are excluded from running for president, lots of whom may have done better than any natural born American. It also whittles down the competition, which is good for convenience's sake though, I s'pose. It's definitely discriminatory towards certain Americans though.

However, when people seek constitutional amendments such as the right to deny people (not other species) rights based on sexual orientation, they lack a foundation from which to justify such an action. In such situations where no justification for such a behaviour can be made, the Constitution must be upheld. Bigotry is never an excuse to amend a law that, time and time again, has proven just.

There's this really unhealthy belief in American society that, because the United States is the most powerful country in the world, it's the most prosperous and there's nothing to be learnt from other nations because none of them are as successful. Black and white arguments like "The perfect government is unattainable" get thrown around, as if they somehow reinforce the idea the government of the United States is the best in the world. As a French-speaking European Canadian with strong ties to Australasia, I can confirm this isn't so.

Countries like Iceland and Norway, treated as novelties by the United States, are pinnacles of human development and progress. Why the priorities and government models of Canada and Japan aren't considered valuable sources of information by the United States, a nation that, despite being the most powerful and wealthy in the world, trails behind on human development, I don't know. By my standards (which are, of course, my own and only mine) governments that find balance with regards to their nation's priorities are much more habitable than the United States. There are lots of countries that are havens of human health, happiness and productivity which have governments that very closely follow the demands of the people and, really, none of them resemble the model the United States follows.

I don't believe for a minute that what the United States strives for today is an accurate reflection of the principles the nation was founded on. I think that's sad.

[DalekSec]

Europe has not mattered since the end of WW2 and I dare anyone to prove me wrong on the basis of historic fact. China is about all that matters in Asia. Deal with it. As folks Yammer, China thanks you for the money and entertainments.

Yes kids, hate it all you like but the U.S. has done far more good than ill and is the most generous, innovative and accepting nation IN THE WORLD! Doubt it, travel a bit and have a look for yourself.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution can be changed. There is a process for it (Plug for the board there) and has been amended on several occasion to grant rights to Blacks, ban booze, un ban booze and a host of other things. Can you IMAGINE, in our modern age of pay offs and lobbying what a Constitutional Convention (The process by which the Constitution is amended) would look like? Fact Check, in the process of a Constitutional Convention the ENTIRE Constitution is laid bare for change. Not just some single happy amendment, the WHOLE thing. Scary when you think of it.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Believe me, I arrived at that conclusion a long time ago.

You didn't refute jack. Of course I'd rather ignore you. You haven't got anything to contribute. No evidence, no examples and not even so much as a nod to the questions posed to you. You just arbitrarily crown yourself victor for no reason, making you the winner in your own mind alone.

And yes, once again. You refuse to answer the question. I'm taking that as an "I don't know but I'm not man enough to admit it" answer.

No, you've made up your mind that you don't like me because I constantly press you to come to the realization that you are completely unwilling to debate like an adult. Anyone who disagrees with you must make the arguments you want, or they offer nothing and you justify ignoring them. You don't want real debate, you want people to prove you right.

Your attack on my credibility falls flat when anyone can see in my posts that I am happy to shore up evidence and analysis to advance my arguments, I can contribute politely and meaningfully to rapport with those that would disagree with me (hi Dalek), and often quote what I am addressing to make it more than clear what I am responding to.

Now if you'll come off your childish, hypocritical screaming and read my posts, you'll note that my response to the question of comparing government to God can be summed up as "That is not a good question because that is not the argument anyone is making." My guess is that you'd rather ignore it because it sidesteps the debate you want, the one in which you are right, and advances a different point that you are unwilling to debate.

I have never claimed that I won anything. I point to an argument, share what is wrong with it and defend the assertion. That is called debate, and it's meant to bring us closer to the truth by sharing different views and claims to be supported or criticized, not to "win." Your obsession with anyone thinking themselves the victor makes me worried that is your aim rather than any attempt to educate yourself or others. Lashing out against me for criticizing the quality of your arguments only brings into question your intellectually maturity.

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Actually, your constitution was made as a safeguard against that. The big problem is people ignoring it. It's not impossible. 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.

Right now, you're following in the same footsteps that led the empire of Rome to ruin in the end. Can people wise up in time to avoid going down that road? We'll see

What kind of government do libertarians want? It's very simple: If it's not in the constitution, you don't do it. End of story, no exceptions.

That's all well and good, but the problem is what the Constitution actually permits. A great deal of Constitutional law is and always has been whether or not an issue not directly addressed by Constitution is implied, inferred, or ought to be addressed. Even the men who drafted the document argued over what it actually meant after the ratification, and immediately felt it necessary propose 12 amendments to specifically limit and define the government and bring forth arguments for the role of the new government. This is the greatness of the Constitution that is so often touted as a living document. Knowing that no framework is perfect or timeless, it was given mechanisms to adapt to new social and economic ideals, new responsibilities or limits or government, or new technologies and ideas through amendment or establishment of legal precedents based on the standing document.

The problem with the Libertarian idea is that it is so very uncompromising and literal, that it refuses to accept that there is grounds for interpreting intent and applying it to a modern context and probably stands in opposition, just as well, to changing a document that they revere. However, given the early context of dissent to the Constitution itself, I feel I must reject an absolutist Libertarian ideal because it denies to the Constitution what is supposed to make it so great. Honestly, would you actually argue its greatness if the framers had NOT proposed the Bill of Rights? If not, then I imagine you can see what is wrong with the literalist interpretation.

Now, with that in mind, I would like to address your radical revision of history. The assertion that there were no unconstitutional acts between 1789 and 1932 (a bit short of many centuries) is glaringly ignorant in the face of cases like the Passenger Cases, Fletcher v. Peck, Adair v. United States, or Ex parte Young among others. Also keep in mind that these cases did still represent a minority of state and federal regulation. When we get to FDR, we do see cases where certain acts were ruled unconstitutional, but do not forget cases upholding the constitutionality of other New Deal acts by the same courts. While Roosevelt may have tried to undermine the Supreme Court to get his way, a despicable act, Congress refused to buy into such a scheme. This was most certainly not ignorance of the Constitution, and most definitely suggests that it has been upheld despite aggressive Executive pursuit of sometimes questionable policy.