|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later.
There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem.
|
On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later.
The 14th Amendment states equal protection under the law. I understand that isn't what you were talking about, but equality is in the constitution. So is providing for the general welfare and the commerce clause. In general its actions have been deemed constitutional, so I don't know what your issue is, exactly.
Edit: Basically the disconnect is a false one. You're just trying to avoid the question.
|
On September 17 2012 11:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:43 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
You didn't finish your sentence. Let me help. "... as long as it's with someone else's money". Let's see here, oppose using taxpayer funds to provide free birth control ? It's a war on women. The entire Democratic party is about spending other people's money. Seniors that vote Democrat think Democrats aren't going to reduce their Medicare benefits. Want a taxpayer-funded Obamaphone ? Vote Democrat.
Suggesting that "at least the Democrats want to do something" isn't automatically a good thing. Sometimes that "something" is borrowing from China to fund Harry Reid's Cowboy Film Festival. Or screwing investors to payoff unions who supported Obama's campaign. Doing "something" isn't automatically the right choice. Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments. It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health. Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way. The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from... Most likely the same place the "Regulations = Good" mentality came from. Holy fuckchrist, I'm sick of these idiotic, simple-minded strawmen. I need a break from this thread. Honestly, it's the second sentence in my post. In a post with four sentences. Like... fuck, dude. I don't even understand people like you.
I'm not saying YOU think that way, just that a simplistic 'all regulations are bad' is equally stupid as 'all regulations are good.'
So.. relax 
|
On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem.
As usual, this quote applies, I think.
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill
The majority of internet users who post on forums like this tend to be younger, and will show a liberal skew. It's really just a disconnect between some people feeling obligated to help others and some feeling like we should not be forced to help others.
|
That quote isn't from Churchill btw.
On September 17 2012 11:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 10:12 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 10:06 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:59 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:54 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 09:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Treating medicine differently just because it's female hormonal treatment is sexist. Taxpayer funds provide free viagra and other male sexual treatments.
It's a moot point, though. Doctors should be determining what goes into healthcare, and they say that female hormonal treatment should be covered. But I'm sure you know better than them oh mighty Kaitlin, guru of women's health.
Both parties are about spending other people's money. That's the what the graphic shows. I have no idea why you think that's a partisan thing. Republicans are about cutting spending. Just ask Obama. As far as the sexist accusation, that's just stupid. None of that shit should be funded through Federal Taxpayer dollars. Limited Government. Er... do I need to bring up the graphic again? Do you feel the need to bring up a graphic of choices for MAJOR cuts to Social Security and Medicare which impact people who are no longer able to generate income to sustain themselves, MAJOR cuts to defense which is an area not dictated by what we can afford, but by what we cannot allow to happen, and raising tax rates which even the President has said would have a detrimental effect on the economy ? Another option not mentioned in your graph is to grow the economy so that revenues increase without tax rate increases, and the deficit as a % of an increased GDP is reduced, and cut out a bunch of bullshit spending which is also not included in the chart ? I guess you can repost the graph if you think it will help your case. Errr... well growing the economy would require either focused government spending or focused tax cuts or something. Neither of those would lower the deficit, so that's kind of a weird comment. Unless you're suggesting that Republicans don't care about the deficit, in which case that's just a disingenuous argument. So maybe you're just saying we shouldn't worry about the deficit right now. We should wait for the economy to come back, and then deal with the deficit. That's ok. But then you should argue that, and not completely confuse people by saying republicans are about cutting spending. Right? The economy can recover by its own accord if the government would just get the fuck out of the way. Regulations that people cry for to "protect" consumers have a negative effect on the economy. Requiring businesses to fill out a bunch of bullshit compliance forms just to operate their business is alot of expenses they have to expend without contributing one iota to the success of the business. The more laws you have to know before you can open up a lemonade stand reduces (drastically) the likelihood of you opening that lemonade stand. Boeing tries to open a plant in South Carolina and the fucking unions call on the government to stop it. But then again, the unions get it on the flip side by the Environmentalists preventing the pipeline, which would create many jobs. There's more to it than government spending or tax cuts. There's get the fuck out of the way. The economy is going to recover with or without deregulation... don't be a doomsayer. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Protecting consumers is good for the economy in the long run. I don't really know where this kind of simplistic "Regulations = Bad" mentality comes from... Most likely the same place the "Regulations = Good" mentality came from. Holy fuckchrist, I'm sick of these idiotic, simple-minded strawmen. I need a break from this thread. Honestly, it's the second sentence in my post. In a post with four sentences. Like... fuck, dude. I don't even understand people like you. I'm not saying YOU think that way, just that a simplistic 'all regulations are bad' is equally stupid as 'all regulations are good.' So.. relax
Ah... okay. All good then. XD
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:37 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. As usual, this quote applies, I think. "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill The majority of internet users who post on forums like this tend to be younger, and will show a liberal skew. It's really just a disconnect between some people feeling obligated to help others and some feeling like we should not be forced to help others.
"Conservative by the time you're 35" "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?" http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed
For the record I grew up conservative with a conservative father. I guess I grew a heart but kept my brains.
|
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though)
|
On September 17 2012 11:37 Risen wrote:
As usual, this quote applies, I think.
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill
The majority of internet users who post on forums like this tend to be younger, and will show a liberal skew. It's really just a disconnect between some people feeling obligated to help others and some feeling like we should not be forced to help others.
Obviously Einstein had no brains.
No one should feel forced to help others, empathy should be instinctual (as far as I'm aware). To "feel forced" would suggest that there is something wrong with that person's brain imo.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:44 Risen wrote:
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though)
If you think about it on the grand scale of things, America is still quite young compared to most other nations. We are conservative without a heart indeed.
|
On September 17 2012 11:47 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:44 Risen wrote:
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though) If you think about it on the grand scale of things, America is still quite young compared to most other nations. We are conservative without a heart indeed.
Wat... how can you take a quote meant to be applied to humans and attribute it to a nation? O_0
Edit: I guess a nation reflects it's people's values, but I would argue that due to the way the constitution was designed the nation lags behind socially.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 11:49 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:47 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:44 Risen wrote:
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though) If you think about it on the grand scale of things, America is still quite young compared to most other nations. We are conservative without a heart indeed. Wat... how can you take a quote meant to be applied to humans and attribute it to a nation? O_0 Edit: I guess a nation reflects it's people's values, but I would argue that due to the way the constitution was designed the nation lags behind socially.
I dunno. If corporations are people, surely a nation can be! =)
The Constitution is only as flexible as the people it represents. We can amend it, and have amended it, for a reason.
|
On September 17 2012 11:50 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:49 Risen wrote:On September 17 2012 11:47 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:44 Risen wrote:
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though) If you think about it on the grand scale of things, America is still quite young compared to most other nations. We are conservative without a heart indeed. Wat... how can you take a quote meant to be applied to humans and attribute it to a nation? O_0 I dunno. If corporations are people, surely a nation can be! =)
Got me there.
|
On September 17 2012 11:44 Risen wrote:
Ah well, a quick google attributed it to him. Point still stands, I believe. I grew up in a strongly conservative household but somehow maintained a liberal social outlook (the conservative fiscal policy stuck, though)
You see a lot of people bring up that quote and misattribute it to Churchill, and it makes one point very well: hypocrites are rarely inclined to check their facts.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I bet Churchill's quote went more along the lines of, "If you aren't liberal by the time you're 25, you have no heart. If you aren't liberal by the time you're 35, you have no brain." 
|
Yeah, and there appears to be no one at all who heard Churchill say that.
|
On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem.
It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ?
I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:11 RavenLoud wrote:
Yeah, and there appears to be no one at all who heard Churchill say that.
He said it to me in my dreams. His soft, raspy, Hitler-esque voi--owait.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be?
btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest.
|
On September 17 2012 12:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw. Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be? btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest.
How can you seriously say that believing in the Constitution absolutely precludes amendment ? Amendment of the Constitution is part of the Constitution ... There is nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment. Also, the Constitution is not a religion, it's the law.
What is the greatest democracy in the history of the world, if not America ? It may not be perfect, as you agree, but it's better than any alternative.
|
On September 17 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 12:18 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:30 Souma wrote:On September 17 2012 11:24 Kaitlin wrote:On September 17 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:
That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you what you want from the government and what you think the government should do for its people, both state and Federal. I don't give a damn about the constitution, I'm telling you to use your head and tell me what you think the government should do for its citizens. If your answer is that the government should do what its citizens ask it to, then let me ask you, what do you think our citizens want from their government? Protecting property rights? Protecting individual liberties? Ensuring equality? All of the above and more? What? Ah. I think I understand the disconnect. I live in the U.S.A. We are an existing country with an existing Constitution that sets out how this Country is setup. I don't live in a hypothetical utopia that I can just make up to be what I think the entire world should be. It's not relevant what I think "the government should do for its citizens". It's relevant to me what the U.S.A. was designed to be. This is not a country of "what the government does for me". This is a country of the government performing the functions that it was assigned in the Constitution and the Citizenry exercising free will and liberty to live their lives how they see fit. I am not arguing what France should do. I don't give a shit. I am not arguing what Tunisia should do. I don't give a shit. That is for those countries' citizens to decide. If I'm not mistaken, property rights are not delineated in the U.S. Constitution, and as such, each State government has its own laws covering that area. Protecting individual liberties. Again, state laws generally cover what we aren't allowed to do to each other. Ensuring equality. Exactly the opposite. We are free to live our lives and reap the rewards. We were all created equal, but what you do from that point is up to you. If somebody is born with one arm, that sucks. It does. And as a compassionate society, we help each other, but we DO NOT mandate that others help. We are free to help or not help. Or at least that was the original setup, but no so much the case 220-some years later. There you go. That is the disconnect indeed. You are bound to some code of laws created centuries ago by people in an entirely different society and an inherently different world (the constitution has been amended how many times?). Most other people believe it's entirely relevant what "the government should do for its citizens" (and, of course, what its citizens can do for the government). At least we found our problem. It was created centuries ago, and is the basis for the greatest democracy (more generally, country) in the history of the world. Why discard it in favor of ideas generated by a mob squatting in a park in NYC between occasions of shitting on police cars and holding meetings with spirit fingers ? I don't understand where all this "To hell with the Constitution" attitude came from, btw. Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't denounce the Constitution. I just think it's ignorant to believe in it as absolute (just as Muslims believe in their religion as absolute). It's dangerous and impedes progress. If everyone believed in the Constitution as absolute, it never would have been amended, then where would we be? btw I also don't believe America is the 'greatest democracy' in the history of the world. Richest? Yeah. Unrivaled military might? Yeah. But I'm an idealist. I believe the happiness of its citizens is what makes a country great. We, my friend, are far from the happiest. How can you seriously say that believing in the Constitution absolutely precludes amendment ? Amendment of the Constitution is part of the Constitution ... There is nothing more Constitutional than a Constitutional Amendment. Also, the Constitution is not a religion, it's the law. What is the greatest democracy in the history of the world, if not America ? It may not be perfect, as you agree, but it's better than any alternative.
If you agree that amendments are part of the heart and soul of the constitution, then you also agree that the strength of the constitution is in its flexibility, and its ability to adapt to changing times.
One of those changes is the role of the federal government. I respect your right to disagree with big government, but you can't go flinging the constitution in our faces as end-all proof that the federal government should never be allowed to fund programs to elevate its own citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
