I am truly interested to see just how many people actually listen and are open to factual evidence and philosophical commentary.
Yes, even I the staunch right-winger listen to NPR and CNN, and MSNBC. You then look at CBO and GAO reports and the dealings in the political realm and it's quite astonishing. Yes, I even listen to Alex Jones and other libertarian hosts like Glenn Beck.
Anyways, the reason why I picked this episode is because out of the years I've been a huge Levininite this is perhaps his best episode ever. It captures what is happening in todays society so poignantly and explores the philosophical approach and ramifications.
Put away your bias's for 2 hours and truly listen. You may be surprised.
P.S. Any troll responses will get banned from this blog, I'm open to legitimate debate, not 'witty' sarcastic jabs by 16 year olds.
On July 11 2009 02:17 Aegraen wrote: P.S. Any troll responses will get banned from this blog, I'm open to legitimate debate, not 'witty' sarcastic jabs by 16 year olds.
I can't listen to this rabid neocon trash with an open mind. I have to close it, lest any of it try to get in, because this guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
How about a radio show host that talks about energy efficiency, instead of the intricacies of rotted and corrupt american oligocracy?
Ok, I actually agree with 1 thing he said, 99% of the hacks in congress haven't the slightest clue about a normal workplace, and they are mostly ivy league lawyer trash with a sense of self-importance that never cares about the mainstream american, because they've never met them.
On July 11 2009 02:35 Motiva wrote: lol...... Just for shits, i'm listening... 5 minutes in and I haven't heard anything I agree w/ yet
gonna keep listening.
So, giving money to states from Federal funds to pay for their budgets creates jobs?
Let's just skip ahead also to the philosophical approach, how am I represented in the other 49 states? I am a resident of Florida. I only have representation in the legislature and government of Florida, not California, Michigan, Oregon, why should money that is directly appropriated from myself to the goliath cesspool of inefficiency in the Capital be handed away to people who don't understand a budget. It is inherently wrong and was the whole point to the American Revolution.
These states where I have no voice can do whatever they want and I have zero say. Period. No federal money should be going to these states for budgetary needs.
I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
Why do you try so hard to convince everyone to see your ultra-conservative way? Do you feel like you have something to prove or do you actually think you'll convince anyone on an e-sports site to see your way?
I think we all know at this point that you're super-conservative while posting on a probably a mostly liberal site. I'm not quite sure I see the point.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
What about personal liberties which a local majority infringe upon. The Government is good at increasing liberty in some areas through intervention, such as sexuality and religion.
On July 11 2009 02:35 Motiva wrote: lol...... Just for shits, i'm listening... 5 minutes in and I haven't heard anything I agree w/ yet
gonna keep listening.
So, giving money to states from Federal funds to pay for their budgets creates jobs?
Let's just skip ahead also to the philosophical approach, how am I represented in the other 49 states? I am a resident of Florida. I only have representation in the legislature and government of Florida, not California, Michigan, Oregon, why should money that is directly appropriated from myself to the goliath cesspool of inefficiency in the Capital be handed away to people who don't understand a budget. It is inherently wrong and was the whole point to the American Revolution.
These states where I have no voice can do whatever they want and I have zero say. Period. No federal money should be going to these states for budgetary needs.
How could you expect any liberal to take this cast seriously after hearing those lines. He is basically saying that "this is going to be ridiculously biased"
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously; just the same guaranteed protection
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
On July 11 2009 02:17 Aegraen wrote: libertarian hosts like Glenn Beck.
wtf? I've only ever heard him express decidedly conservative viewpoints.
But I guess the spectrum of what falls under "libertarianism" is pretty broad. I'm more left-libertarian myself.
In case you weren't aware, the two founders of the Libertarian Party were Goldwater/Taft conservatives who came out of the YAF.
I myself hold a conservative/libertarian viewpoint much like say, Ron Paul/Robert Taft regarding non-interventionism, and traditional Austrian Economics like Mises and Friedman. The FED and IRS needs to be abolished and tax code simply replaced with a Fair Tax.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
The Constitution created a stronger federal government than did the articles of confederation and the bill of rights did not limit state power until the passage of the fourteenth amendment. The reasons for the new constitution were primarily economic. There were foreign policy concerns too, but economics was the primary issue.
On July 11 2009 02:35 Motiva wrote: lol...... Just for shits, i'm listening... 5 minutes in and I haven't heard anything I agree w/ yet
gonna keep listening.
So, giving money to states from Federal funds to pay for their budgets creates jobs?
Let's just skip ahead also to the philosophical approach, how am I represented in the other 49 states? I am a resident of Florida. I only have representation in the legislature and government of Florida, not California, Michigan, Oregon, why should money that is directly appropriated from myself to the goliath cesspool of inefficiency in the Capital be handed away to people who don't understand a budget. It is inherently wrong and was the whole point to the American Revolution.
These states where I have no voice can do whatever they want and I have zero say. Period. No federal money should be going to these states for budgetary needs.
Your thoughts on the matter?
Elect senators and congressman that'll represent Florida's interests in federal government. Florida agrees to yield to the federal government and the federal government decides to give some of Florida's money to other states. So Florida's say is this: we want to be part of the United States so we'll do as the federal government asks even when our interests do not coincide with the federal government's.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
The Constitution created a stronger federal government than did the articles of confederation and the bill of rights did not limit state power until the passage of the fourteenth amendment. The reasons for the new constitution were primarily economic. There were foreign policy concerns too, but economics was the primary issue.
Yes, it did. However, as you progress further and further right on the political scale you reach the end which results in Anarchy. Anarchy and Despotism serves the same function in regards to securing freedom and liberty; you have very little to none. They realized this and came up with the Constitution.
Your economic status and it's ability for trade to be stable is directly tied to your freedom and liberty. Property Rights is a fundamental concept concerning liberty and freedom. They created a system that was as limited a centralized power as possible while securing the most freedom possible. It's a tricky balance, one they struck greatly.
I would argue that prior to 1868 there were restraints on State power and specifically the 10th amendment lays out the grounds for power delegated to the States AND the people.
On July 11 2009 02:17 Aegraen wrote: libertarian hosts like Glenn Beck.
wtf? I've only ever heard him express decidedly conservative viewpoints.
But I guess the spectrum of what falls under "libertarianism" is pretty broad. I'm more left-libertarian myself.
In case you weren't aware, the two founders of the Libertarian Party were Goldwater/Taft conservatives who came out of the YAF.
Those two influenced, but did not found the Libertarian Party.
And, in case you weren't aware, the word "libertarian" was coined by an anarcho-communist.
I didn't say Goldwater and Taft founded the libertarian party. David Nolan was a goldwater/taft conservative who was increasingly fed up with the direction of the YAF and thus branched off in 1971 and created the Libertarian Party.
I don't care who coined it, the relevancy of the term derives itself from its representation. In different countries it could mean different things, just like how Europe and America reverse Liberalism. In Europe conservatives are the 'classical-liberals'. The US does not use the term which describes people like Edmund Burke (Even though he is the founder of the conservative philosophy) how the Europeans do.
The whole point was that conservatism and libertarianism share many views in common.
On July 11 2009 04:10 Aegraen wrote: Yes, it did. However, as you progress further and further right on the political scale you reach the end which results in Anarchy.
Tell that to Karl Hess.
I would argue that prior to 1868 there were restraints on State power and specifically the 10th amendment lays out the grounds for power delegated to the States AND the people.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
People like Mark Levin are never going to change anyone's opinions on anything. They speak in conservative shorthand and base their arguments on conservative assumptions that people on the left don't accept or even really understand.
I mean, how much do you think I could change your mind if I told you to go watch Keith Olberman or Fahrenheit 911 tonight with an "open mind"?
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
No conservative should praise Roe v Wade. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger the eugenist is a sickening individual. Secondly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words:
" Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
In case you don't know Ginsburg is a huge liberal. They disguise there true feelings inside 'choice' to hide the fact of their disgusting racism. Why do you think 80% of planned parenthoods are in the inner city and why do you think by a 3:1 margin more blacks get abortions than any other ethnicity?
Who the hell would praise a decision that kills babies and supports eugenics? Even Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v Wade) is an outspoken critic against abortion.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
Again, you're just pointing to politics that you view as superior as the 'right' way. You ignore the fact that Democracies can fall prey to Utilitarianism easily under the guise of Nationalism. Point in case, Hitler was democratically elected and right after, created the Enabling Act. Democracies destroy minorities just as much as any other form of government; Native Americans, Japanese Americans for example. also Hurricane Katrina isn't the exception, just another point in case of how easy minorities can be cast aside.
Side note: I don't believe in Affirmative Action, as much as I sound like I'm pushing for minority power, I don't believe they should get more rights then the majority or anyone else obviously.
Anyway..
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything as it interpreted by 9 people. How is it one year the equal protection clause may be seen one way and in 50 years, in another way. The only thing the Constitution guarantees is three branches of government. Everything else can be debated. It is impressive that 200 years it is still referred to as, but it has long become a crutch when looked to for modern laws in an age where information, not people, is power.
China maybe have issues in its own borders about 'millions killed' but democratic countries seem to be getting their fill on foreign soil lately.
You do know the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy correct? The Constitution secures the rights to minorities so majorities cannot take them away. That's the whole purpose behind a Republic.
Lastly, I'm not sure you know this, but the Mayor of New Orleans who failed so horrendously and was the direct cause of many lives being lost was BLACK, anyways the people were warned, they decided to stay. It's not the governments job to grab you by the hand and wisk you away.
Are you denying the whole existence of the Constitution is to secure the rights, freedoms and liberty of the people?
Judicial Activism is going to be one of the main causes of the downfall of this country. However, since we the people and the states have all rights not explicitly given to the Federal Government we can in fact take matters into our own hands.
For example, there is a process called amending the constitution. The Supreme Court can't just rule the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional. If they did, we the people would rise up and stop them and it would be well within our constitutional right regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
You seem to think interpretation is broadly based. The SCOTUS picks apart little snips of the constitution and hammers away year after year, decade after decade. They would never dream of unilateraly declaring or bypassing an amendment. In any event the SCOTUS is a plague on the constitution all too often they reprise the role of we the people in matters where the amendment process is the only legal recourse they instead proclaim on all of us their interpretation. *puke*
Republics just tend to favor larger cities in terms of politics and social issues. Moot point on what it supposed to do versus what is happening. All a republic does is shield what one state does with its minorities against what the federal government says should be going on.
I'm denying the constitution was created perfectly yes. When it includes slavery in the document, it doesn't guarantee anything. Amendments try to fix what the Constitution has as flaws. All a constitution does (The USA doesn't have monopoly on Constitutions) is create a binding contract between citizen and government.
You're taking my view to an extreme point. I know the SCOTUS can't say an amendment is unconstitutional since amendments are legally bound to them. What I'm saying is how they can be interpreted from decade to decade can vary to an extend. I'm not sure why you think the SCOTUS is a plague since they've done pretty well in the past - they tend to be moderate and fix social issues faster then some backwards politicians can.
Though, I'm not sure how conservative you are but if you find things like brown vs board of ed and Roe v. Wade a plague then I don't think there is much hope in arguing with you, he who proclaims "have an open mind". Real conservatives should praise Roe v Wade for privacy in the bed room as a matter of fact.
No conservative should praise Roe v Wade. The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger the eugenist is a sickening individual. Secondly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's own words:
" Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
In case you don't know Ginsburg is a huge liberal. They disguise there true feelings inside 'choice' to hide the fact of their disgusting racism. Why do you think 80% of planned parenthoods are in the inner city and why do you think by a 3:1 margin more blacks get abortions than any other ethnicity?
Who the hell would praise a decision that kills babies and supports eugenics? Even Norma McCorvey (Roe in Roe v Wade) is an outspoken critic against abortion.
Because schools refuse to teach Sex Education in low income neighbor hoods because they get (got: Thanks) funding from the federal government to teach some dumb form of abstinence.
Abortionists now aren't correct in saying that it should be like other country's form of doing it by saying , "Don't ask, don't tell" but making it outright illegal in the face of complications/rape/uninformed minors is absurd all the same. The problem, like all SCOTUS cases is people take it too literally, state legislatures as well will let anything go if the SCOTUS says the case is true in the worst case scenario, they'll let it go in any scenario.
In the future, using the term 'liberal' as some sort of derogatory word is just going to belittle your argument. I suggest you stop using it that way. I don't really care if they are liberal or not. In fact I could give two shits.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with people getting abortions. Why the hell should a child that has no future be brought up in that type of environment. Just to add to poverty tracts? Thanks but no thanks.
Republicans think Democrats are idiots. Demorats think Republicans are idiots. Conclusion; idiots think everyone is an idiot.
Listening to either side talk about the other is just worthless bullshit equivalent to high school girls drama'ing over each other's popularity for their own popularity gains.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution.
Laughably wrong.
Aegraen get your historical facts straight. American Revolutionists wanted Freedom and Liberty from who?
In very same time these same American Revolutionists enjoyed thousands of their niggers.
USA is built from the biggest hypocrisy of all time, to this very day there is no such thing as freedom and liberty, not all man are created equal, there is no such thing as human right. You want evidence?
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
If freedom and liberty "is" the sole reason for the American Revolution, then why did the Framers impose so many restrictions on voting? Restrictions that were only overcome with the rise of populist figures (who were often awful in action) like Andrew Jackson. American history isn't as romantic as you portray it.
Also, when utilitarianism kills millions, it feeds billions.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution.
Laughably wrong.
Aegraen get your historical facts straight. American Revolutionists wanted Freedom and Liberty from who?
In very same time these same American Revolutionists enjoyed thousands of their niggers.
USA is built from the biggest hypocrisy of all time, to this very day there is no such thing as freedom and liberty, not all man are created equal, there is no such thing as human right. You want evidence?
from my understanding of history aegraen is totally right. american revolutionists wanted freedom and liberty from england, from the crown. you're talking about shit that is completely unrelated.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
If freedom and liberty "is" the sole reason for the American Revolution, then why did the Framers impose so many restrictions on voting? Restrictions that were only overcome with the rise of populist figures (who were often awful in action) like Andrew Jackson. American history isn't as romantic as you portray it.
Also, when utilitarianism kills millions, it feeds billions.
You seem to be forgetting that hundreds of thousands of people fought in the war. Their reasons for fighting are not necessarily represented in the politics of the era. Just as it is right now.
On July 11 2009 03:34 Aegraen wrote: Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution.
Laughably wrong.
Aegraen get your historical facts straight. American Revolutionists wanted Freedom and Liberty from who?
In very same time these same American Revolutionists enjoyed thousands of their niggers.
USA is built from the biggest hypocrisy of all time, to this very day there is no such thing as freedom and liberty, not all man are created equal, there is no such thing as human right. You want evidence?
Ah yes, the Sons of Liberty never existed. Patrick Henry and "Give me Liberty or Give me death" was never said. The Declaration of Independence was never penned (I would recommend you read it sometime).
I know better than most that the US history was tumultuos (I'm half cherokee, trail of tears anyone?), but at the same time our Founders were the most ardent supporters in the history of the world for a nation conceived in personal liberty and freedom.
On July 11 2009 02:48 Railz wrote: I love people who use the word "open mind". You know right off the bat they're hypocritical. No self respecting person has to use it to refer to an idea and portray it to others. An open mind suggests there is no right or wrong, just believe what is proven. Nothing in politics is ever proven.
Seems as though I would disagree.
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
That doesn't matter. The amount of liberty doesn't equate to anything. It makes for a better way of life individually perhaps, but those in China have no problem against this till they're blue in the face as you would be too.
Liberty equates to nothing in politics.
Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution. If you so despise your albeit more and more limited version of freedom and liberty, well there are countries that have vastly inferior freedom and liberty.
The US Constitution sole purpose is to secure the rights, freedoms, and liberty of the people. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate at securing these liberties so that is why they were scrapped for the Constitution.
Philosophy is everything in politics. Utilitarianism only ends up with millions killed. It has in every single case throughout history.
If freedom and liberty "is" the sole reason for the American Revolution, then why did the Framers impose so many restrictions on voting? Restrictions that were only overcome with the rise of populist figures (who were often awful in action) like Andrew Jackson. American history isn't as romantic as you portray it.
Also, when utilitarianism kills millions, it feeds billions.
Did I say the American Revolution was perfect? Anyways, the Constitution and Bill of Rights had all the tools necessary to fix whatever ails it. In Edmund Burkes famous words:
A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Utilitarianism doesn't feed billions, it caused mass starvation in Russia when Stalin collectivized the farms for 'the greater good'.
@Travis i'm talking about the fact that they were slave owners shouting out loud for their own freedom, how is that unrelated? they are related in 3 different ways 1: same time, owning of their slaves and out cry for freedom happens in the same time. 2: same people: the leaders of revolution are slave owners. 3: same place: they own their slaves in America, they wanted freedom of America.
@Aegraen you are right the Revolution is not perfect, the constitution and bill of rights had all the tools for us later generations.
however, what you said was "Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution."
All i did was provide evidence that suggests freedom and liberty is not the SOLE reason for the American revolution, if the ideal of freedom is the sole reason then they would have freed their slaves.
I'm aiming on the word SOLE.
What is your evidence proving that freedom and liberty is the SOLE reason for American Revolution?
Please forgive me of my ridiculous assumptions, I am sorry if the following assumption is way off. Could you meant only freedom and liberty of American from England? and not Freedom and liberty for all human? are you suggesting that Freedom and liberty is prejudice? The whites deserve freedom and liberty from England, but the Blacks don't from their owners?
I apologize for making bad assumptions, but i'm making them to prove a point, which is true freedom and liberty is without race, without culture.
Leaders put the revolutionists together with the soul calling of 'don't tread on me' but the leaders attentions had many different spans. Ranging from something as simple as taxing, land ownership, right up to currency; ie economic reasons.
On July 11 2009 12:39 rei wrote: @Travis i'm talking about the fact that they were slave owners shouting out loud for their own freedom, how is that unrelated? they are related in 3 different ways 1: same time, owning of their slaves and out cry for freedom happens in the same time. 2: same people: the leaders of revolution are slave owners. 3: same place: they own their slaves in America, they wanted freedom of America.
@Aegraen you are right the Revolution is not perfect, the constitution and bill of rights had all the tools for us later generations.
however, what you said was "Freedom and Liberty is the sole reason for the American Revolution."
All i did was provide evidence that suggests freedom and liberty is not the SOLE reason for the American revolution, if the ideal of freedom is the sole reason then they would have freed their slaves.
I'm aiming on the word SOLE.
What is your evidence proving that freedom and liberty is the SOLE reason for American Revolution?
Please forgive me of my ridiculous assumptions, I am sorry if the following assumption is way off. Could you meant only freedom and liberty of American from England? and not Freedom and liberty for all human? are you suggesting that Freedom and liberty is prejudice? The whites deserve freedom and liberty from England, but the Blacks don't from their owners?
I apologize for making bad assumptions, but i'm making them to prove a point, which is true freedom and liberty is without race, without culture.
I'm beginning to think your idea of Freedom and Liberty is idealistic in Anarchy. Yes, Freedom and Liberty was the sole reason for the American Revolution. In case you didn't know yet, the colonies revolted against the crown, King George.
You have not laid forth any other valid reasons why the colonies revolted.
If you have any doubts don't take me at my words, take my Founders at theirs:
"[L]iberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." -- John Adams, 1765
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." -- Patrick Henry
"That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle." -- James Otis, 1761
"These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value." -- Tom Paine (Note the use of the word Tyranny)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Tom Paine
"Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel ministry we will not tamely submit -- appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free." -- Joseph Warren, 1775
"We began a contest for liberty ill provided with the means for the war, relying on our patriotism to supply the deficiency. We expected to encounter many wants and distressed… we must bear the present evils and fortitude…" -- George Washington in 1781
"Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions -- The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and show the whole world, that a free man contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth." -- George Washington, 1776
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." - Thomas Jefferson
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." Samuel Adams
The signatories' "hopes have been raised and confirmed by the declarations...with regard to equal liberty...[and] that having long groaned under the burden of ecclesiastical establishment [the established Church of England in Virginia], they pray that this, as well as every other yoke, may be broken and that the oppressed may go free. – Signatories of the "ten-thousand name" petition, circulated by the Baptists, submitted to Virginia's first House of Delegates in the fall of 1776
Your problem is you are viewing the late 1700's through the lens and thought process of a 21st centry person. In the 1700s it was the norm in the world for slave ownership. Yes, it was wrong and morally reprehensible and yes many of the Founders understood this. They also understood that if they were to try and specify that slave ownership was illegal there would have been no U.S. The colonies would not have ratified the Constitution nor the Articles of Confederation. Lastly and most importantly the Freedom and Liberty you enjoy today you owe to those brave men in 1776.
P.S. World War II was definitely not even remotely connected to 1776. My god, our education system is in dire straits...
On July 11 2009 12:58 Railz wrote: Leaders put the revolutionists together with the soul calling of 'don't tread on me' but the leaders attentions had many different spans. Ranging from something as simple as taxing, land ownership, right up to currency; ie economic reasons.
Wrong. The signers knew they were signing their own death warrants. They sacrificed everything they had for the cause of Liberty and Freedom.
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
You must understand, those who fought and those who signed the Declaration had no idea they were going to succeed. They had conviction, bravery, and courage to stand up against the mightiest Empire in the world. Can you honestly sit there and believe if you were Thomas Paine in 1776 that you were signing the Declaration to advance your own private economic gains? How much folly that line of thinking would have been.
Aegraen quote actions please, not words, words mean nothing without quoting what they did, i'm sure it should be easy for you.
"Yes, it was wrong and morally reprehensible and yes many of the Founders understood this. They also understood that if they were to try and specify that slave ownership was illegal there would have been no U.S. " At least here you admit that USA land of the free is built up on slavery, and they did it knowing they were wrong.
I am aware of the evolution of morality, what is conceived as permissible back then is not morally permissible now. But the matter of the fact is that these people you are speaking are wise, they knew what they did was wrong, yet they did it anyways, hence, i'm saying their hypocrisy knew no bounds.
as for "You have not laid forth any other valid reasons why the colonies revolted." I didn't laid forth any other reasons at all because all i needed is to point out the weakness in your SOLE reason for the revolution, which is hypocrisy. A logical person capable of critical thinking and open minded person such as you claimed yourself to be WILL logically seek out other could be alternative reasons for the revolution.
"P.S. World War II was definitely not even remotely connected to 1776. My god, our education system is in dire straits..."
World war II was just one of the many examples I can use to demonstrate the failure of American Government following the consititution and bill of right, which, Maybe is somewhat connected to 1776? Freedom and Liberty is prejudice against TIME also??? not just race and culture such as Freedom for the whites, but slavery for the blacks? what freedom and liberty is back in 1776 is no longer freedom and liberty in 1942?
and no god does not exist, especially your god, if you think so prove it, our education system is in dire straits, but I am in a unique position to fix it. It has already started with my class.
On July 11 2009 16:50 rei wrote: Aegraen quote actions please, not words, words mean nothing without quoting what they did, i'm sure it should be easy for you.
"Yes, it was wrong and morally reprehensible and yes many of the Founders understood this. They also understood that if they were to try and specify that slave ownership was illegal there would have been no U.S. " At least here you admit that USA land of the free is built up on slavery, and they did it knowing they were wrong.
I am aware of the evolution of morality, what is conceived as permissible back then is not morally permissible now. But the matter of the fact is that these people you are speaking are wise, they knew what they did was wrong, yet they did it anyways, hence, i'm saying their hypocrisy knew no bounds.
as for "You have not laid forth any other valid reasons why the colonies revolted." I didn't laid forth any other reasons at all because all i needed is to point out the weakness in your SOLE reason for the revolution, which is hypocrisy. A logical person capable of critical thinking and open minded person such as you claimed yourself to be WILL logically seek out other could be alternative reasons for the revolution.
"P.S. World War II was definitely not even remotely connected to 1776. My god, our education system is in dire straits..."
World war II was just one of the many examples I can use to demonstrate the failure of American Government following the consititution and bill of right, which, Maybe is somewhat connected to 1776? Freedom and Liberty is prejudice against TIME also??? not just race and culture such as Freedom for the whites, but slavery for the blacks? what freedom and liberty is back in 1776 is no longer freedom and liberty in 1942?
and no god does not exist, especially your god, if you think so prove it, our education system is in dire straits, but I am in a unique position to fix it. It has already started with my class.
Please tell me you are not a teacher, especially not a history or english teacher.
Here let me address your points, line by line.
You want action: Revolutionary War (What is the whole point to Revolutions: Ideas *wink wink*)
The US was not built upon slavery. The US was built on the idea of a Constitutional Republic that embraced Adam Smith and the philosophical symbiotic relationship between Capitalism and Freedom and Liberty.
Hypocrisy? It's called a realistic approach. For example, I'd love to do a lot of things that would benefit the country (Specifically: Abolishing the IRS), but it certainly isn't feasible in this political climate (Even though the time is encroaching very fast), just as the Founders knew it was impossible to create the U.S. in the late 1780's with the explicit prohibition of slavery. Do you understand that the Constitution would not have been ratified, thus slavery would still have been legal and on top of that, there would be no U.S., but 13 seperate sovereign nations. So, the choice was, slavery legal adoption of the US Constitution (knowing full well that the next generations would end up abolishing it) or slavery legal 13 seperate nations.
My arguement is flawless. Every single historian, scholar, and anyone that can pick up the Declaration of Independence understands the reason for the American Revolution. You however, claim no alternative reason and have no supportive arguement, yet I conclusively show you why the Founders started the American Revolution. This is like talking with a deaf child.
I'm not even going to dignify a response to the last paragraph it's that absurd.
On July 11 2009 19:11 Manifesto7 wrote: You arguments are overshadowed by your arrogance Aegraen. I suggest you learn to debate without insults or no one will take you seriously.
One would have never imagined people would believe that the American Revolution was for anything, but Freedom and Liberty as it is only the keystone highlight in the Declaration of Independence.
On July 11 2009 19:11 Manifesto7 wrote: You arguments are overshadowed by your arrogance Aegraen. I suggest you learn to debate without insults or no one will take you seriously.
One would have never imagined people would believe that the American Revolution was for anything, but Freedom and Liberty as it is only the keystone highlight in the Declaration of Independence.
One would hope you are not a debate coach or lawyer, as you have squandered your opportunity to respond to his concern so that you may reiterate your thesis for the umpteenth time. One could listen to so many politicians and pundits that one could do no more than parrot their habits. One desires open-mindedness indeed, but perhaps one asks it of the wrong person.
Aegraen I offer no alternative reasons because I want you to find them, if they came from me, you will not believe it, doesn't matter how much Wall of text and how much evidence i mount. Why do i make that assumption? Your Arrogance is my evidence, you have already made up your mind that I am an idiot who came out of a dire straits educational system
Why do you assume I believe revolution was not for freedom and liberty? I only said freedom and liberty is not the sole reason, and there are other alternative reasons you will have to find them yourselves. Stop making assumptions if I did not explicitly state what my beliefs are.
In the matter of American Revolution I believe Revolution was for freedom and liberty of only one group of people, but not all, I gave you evidence, I gave you reason, your admitted my evidence is true, you said they indeed own black slaves.
oh yea i'm a teacher, be more condenscending please. Don't name your topic open minded if you are not willing to consider the evidences into logics. I even linked you a youtube video on what open minded is. go watch till the very end, and reflect on what you have being saying.
I don't understand these social-studies related subjects. How have people argued what the founding fathers wanted for over 200 years? Is in not clear for some reason what they wanted (I don't know, I'm only asking).
It seems like you can just carefully choose words and quotes to support whatever you want, it's like religion.
On July 11 2009 03:03 Fontong wrote: "Conservatism is on the rise...we are right."
How could you expect any liberal to take this cast seriously after hearing those lines. He is basically saying that "this is going to be ridiculously biased"
thx for trying
yeah lol once he justified his statement by saying 'because we are right' i stopped listening
On July 12 2009 02:28 Ancestral wrote: I don't understand these social-studies related subjects. How have people argued what the founding fathers wanted for over 200 years? Is in not clear for some reason what they wanted (I don't know, I'm only asking).
It seems like you can just carefully choose words and quotes to support whatever you want, it's like religion.
Well, there's a lot of first hand (quotes, letters, books) and second hand (someone else's observations, what others thought of someone else, etc.) data left over from that period. While, yes, one can cherry pick words to support his/her own agenda, the general idea is to look at all that data in aggregate and try to deduce what people of that period actually thought. Of course, it's not very clear cut, and even without deliberately trying to interpret data in one way or another, many different analyses do occur.
"Freedom and Liberty is the reason for the American Revolution." Yep, that's the answer you're given in school to make to feel good about yourself and your country. The truth is never what it seems, guys.
The main reason for the revolution was because Britain wouldn't allow America to have their own debt-free currency. The British wanted America to borrow money from the British central bank, which was loaned at interest. Other reasons were economic in nature. What they told the common people was "freedom and liberty."
Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
Using founding fathers as a way to justify the point is pretty hilarious. For every Quote that Jefferson puts forth about freedom and liberty, there is the anti-quote from Adams regarding strict law.
The founding fathers were great for their ability to compromise, not be right, something that we have all forgotten. They knew the USA was an experiment, they didn't know much beyond that.
On July 12 2009 10:57 eMbrace wrote: Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
You do know Mark Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation, a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar and worked in Reagans administration correct?
I guess the CBO and GAO also have no clue what's going on either.
Aegraen read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Anywhere there says the someone's words who has a respected title can be consider as absolute truth and as evidence to demonstrate the truth of an assertion?
On July 12 2009 10:57 eMbrace wrote: Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
You do know Mark Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation, a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar and worked in Reagans administration correct?
I guess the CBO and GAO also have no clue what's going on either.
On July 12 2009 14:27 rei wrote: Aegraen read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Anywhere there says the someone's words who has a respected title can be consider as absolute truth and as evidence to demonstrate the truth of an assertion?
/facepalm.
Do you honestly believe conservative talk radio is just a roundhouse of 'I say this is happening, and it is!'. No. It's a mix of philosophy coupled with the use of facts (If you ever listen to the show, you would know that a lot of hosts like Mark Steyn, Ingraham, etc. use CBO, GAO, and independent source reporting (Drudge etc.)), and colorful commentary that us conservatives find quite entertaining (For example: Levin calls those in the GOP who vote against conservative values: Repubics. I also love the Barney's Frank bit, hilarious). They also don't parrot party lines, as when anyone in the party votes counter to conservative values they rip them as much as any eco-marxist.
I guarantee you, you listen for a week and you'll hear as much against the likes of Snowes, Collins, Powells, Grahams, Tax and Kill 8, failure of GOP leadership, and anyone who voted for TARP and Stimulus. Anyways, I myself am an independent conservative/libertarian and the only reason I'm not registered as a Libertarian is because I disagree on a few social issues.
And lastly, if all Talk Radio did was parrot party lines and said the same talking points over and over it would be a huge failure like Air America and NPR is. It's successful because it isn't that, and as any good conservative sticks to principles and values irrespective of party.
On July 12 2009 10:57 eMbrace wrote: Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
You do know Mark Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation, a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar and worked in Reagans administration correct?
I guess the CBO and GAO also have no clue what's going on either.
He doesn't sound professional at all
Would you rather have dull boring commentary, or lively entertaining commentary? The same information is still presented either way. Some people hold onto the concept like you have to be Mother Theresa for you to be taken seriously, which is erroneous. I like my facts spiced with colorful commentary, of course if you identify with those ideologies and people it may not be as funny, but facts are facts either way.
On July 12 2009 10:57 eMbrace wrote: Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
You do know Mark Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation, a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar and worked in Reagans administration correct?
I guess the CBO and GAO also have no clue what's going on either.
He doesn't sound professional at all
Would you rather have dull boring commentary, or lively entertaining commentary? The same information is still presented either way. Some people hold onto the concept like you have to be Mother Theresa for you to be taken seriously, which is erroneous. I like my facts spiced with colorful commentary, of course if you identify with those ideologies and people it may not be as funny, but facts are facts either way.
On July 12 2009 10:57 eMbrace wrote: Whoever follows the radio to form their entire opinion on an issue is narrow-minded. People who listen to radio shows like this have no clue about what's going on, they know nothing about ecomonics -- they aren't educated in any of the matters going on right now.
And yet we listen to a guy that says "Obama is bullcrap", and a bunch of facts he just reads off and expects all his listeners to believe him -- and they do, pathetically.
I'm not going to give an opinion, because I don't have a right to bash or support shit I don't understand. If I weren't lazy, I'd sit down everyday and actually research this issue, but I don't do that, and neither does 99% of our population.
You do know Mark Levin is the President of Landmark Legal Foundation, a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar and worked in Reagans administration correct?
I guess the CBO and GAO also have no clue what's going on either.
He doesn't sound professional at all
Would you rather have dull boring commentary, or lively entertaining commentary? The same information is still presented either way. Some people hold onto the concept like you have to be Mother Theresa for you to be taken seriously, which is erroneous. I like my facts spiced with colorful commentary, of course if you identify with those ideologies and people it may not be as funny, but facts are facts either way.
The "spice" you are referring to is extreme bias.
Barney's Frank. He also does a spot on lisp impression, it is quite the feat.
Aegraen that's not what I said at all, I didn't say they spread lies, and everything they say is not true. All I am saying is that you should form your own opinion base on evidence and not someone else's words, that way when you are in an argument with someone on that matter, you can actually quote evidences instead of someone else's words that you yourself taken for granted without examining whether or not what they said or what you read is true.
you have to really stop assuming, and just read what people write. I make that same mistake all the time, i'm still learning.
did you watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI reflect on yourself please. If you are able to think critically, which I assume you can, you will be able to see the irony in your blog title.
EPT
