P
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
No.
http://www.baycitizen.org/crime/story/shootings-funerals-oakland-trouble-and/
No.
http://www.baycitizen.org/crime/story/shootings-funerals-oakland-trouble-and/
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
This insanity has to stop. That's a purely rhetorical statement that can be turned the other way quite simply:
It's all a very black-and-white, extreme way of looking at this sort of issue that is really killing the nature of political discourse in this country. Just throw out two extreme viewpoints and let one of them win, right? No room for compromise in the middle. This is America! We hate ties! I know you pure right wingers here will hate me for saying this, but Kepler had a great point on that matter that conveniently hasn't been adressed:
Imagine if you could somehow summarize the efficiency of government (including both the benefits and restrictions of government) as a simple number, and you graphed it on a scale of the two extremes I presented above: "no state governments, one huge federal government" to "no federal governments, a bunch of tiny state/nations".
Would that graph ever be a straight line, leading upwards in one direction? Or would it be a bell curve, where it maxes out in the middle before heading downwards towards some tiny amount on the edges? How often are we forgetting that the best solution often exists in the middle of the two dominant philosophies?
This is very similar to the debate that raged on about the Tea Party in the last thread. So many argued about the dangers of too much vs. too little government- how government only "restricts" your freedoms and that government only provides "free cheese" (presumably, that's right-winger code for welfare, handouts, and insane levels of socialist spending, etc.). Try graphing freedom or liberty on a scale of "total oppressive totalitarian uber-government" to "complete anarchy", and ask yourself if it looks like a a line or a bell curve.
The biggest struggle of government is finding where that middle ground is on those major issues, yet in reading the last few weeks' worth of material in this thread I'd swear that some of you were convinced that the answer lies on the extreme ends.
I'm sure some of us lefties were just as annoying and extreme when W. was in power (these sort of things tend to follow the minority party, I've noticed), but for crying out loud, let's get a grip, people. Going insane just to get payback on your opponents... how's that working in the Middle East?
[/Embolism Pops]
[Embolism Pops]
This insanity has to stop. That's a purely rhetorical statement that can be turned the other way quite simply:
If it's so much easier to run a state than it is a nation then why can't we just get rid of the national government and just have 50 <strike>states</strike> independent nations? Well, besides the fact that we would stop being awesome at the Olympics and our World Cup dreams would go to hell.
It's all a very black-and-white, extreme way of looking at this sort of issue that is really killing the nature of political discourse in this country. Just throw out two extreme viewpoints and let one of them win, right? No room for compromise in the middle. This is America! We hate ties! I know you pure right wingers here will hate me for saying this, but Kepler had a great point on that matter that conveniently hasn't been adressed:
Imagine if you could somehow summarize the efficiency of government (including both the benefits and restrictions of government) as a simple number, and you graphed it on a scale of the two extremes I presented above: "no state governments, one huge federal government" to "no federal governments, a bunch of tiny state/nations".
Would that graph ever be a straight line, leading upwards in one direction? Or would it be a bell curve, where it maxes out in the middle before heading downwards towards some tiny amount on the edges? How often are we forgetting that the best solution often exists in the middle of the two dominant philosophies?
This is very similar to the debate that raged on about the Tea Party in the last thread. So many argued about the dangers of too much vs. too little government- how government only "restricts" your freedoms and that government only provides "free cheese" (presumably, that's right-winger code for welfare, handouts, and insane levels of socialist spending, etc.). Try graphing freedom or liberty on a scale of "total oppressive totalitarian uber-government" to "complete anarchy", and ask yourself if it looks like a a line or a bell curve.
The biggest struggle of government is finding where that middle ground is on those major issues, yet in reading the last few weeks' worth of material in this thread I'd swear that some of you were convinced that the answer lies on the extreme ends.
I'm sure some of us lefties were just as annoying and extreme when W. was in power (these sort of things tend to follow the minority party, I've noticed), but for crying out loud, let's get a grip, people. Going insane just to get payback on your opponents... how's that working in the Middle East?
[/Embolism Pops]
rufus
rock and roller
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X58RPS665V0
Almost forgot the "trailer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X58RPS665V0
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
I was simply taking the argument through its full progression. Obviously it was extreme. I was trying to make a point, not be literal.
I think its safe to say that the federal gov't has grown far beyond what the Founders had originally envisioned. The only reason for the federal gov't was to do those things that the states couldn't do; nat'l defense, tariffs, etc. I simply believe that we should move back towards that model instead of continuing on our current trajectory. The larger a gov't becomes the more burdensome and inefficient it is.
I was simply taking the argument through its full progression. Obviously it was extreme. I was trying to make a point, not be literal.
I think its safe to say that the federal gov't has grown far beyond what the Founders had originally envisioned. The only reason for the federal gov't was to do those things that the states couldn't do; nat'l defense, tariffs, etc. I simply believe that we should move back towards that model instead of continuing on our current trajectory. The larger a gov't becomes the more burdensome and inefficient it is.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Wow -- Kepler and I actually see eye-to-eye on something!
Totally, totally awesome.
Wow -- Kepler and I actually see eye-to-eye on something!
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
It's tough to really put into perspective what the founding fathers envisioned and how much that should impact what our nation is today. While they all certainly had their opinions on government (which certainly are closer to your worldview than to many others'), they didn't write those beliefs into our Constitution.
Part of the brilliance of what they established was that it could change and adapt to the needs of the nation. They believed in democracy even more than they believed in small government. Otherwise, the Constitution would look much different. If the country wants big government, we'll vote for people who will make it happen. If the country wants small government, we'll vote accordingly.
It's tough to really put into perspective what the founding fathers envisioned and how much that should impact what our nation is today. While they all certainly had their opinions on government (which certainly are closer to your worldview than to many others'), they didn't write those beliefs into our Constitution.
Part of the brilliance of what they established was that it could change and adapt to the needs of the nation. They believed in democracy even more than they believed in small government. Otherwise, the Constitution would look much different. If the country wants big government, we'll vote for people who will make it happen. If the country wants small government, we'll vote accordingly.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
I definitely disagree with this. The way the Constitution was written was to limit the federal gov't power. The Constitution basically says that it can only do a few specific things and the states have the power to do everything else. To paraphrase Madison: the powers of the federal gov't are few and defined, the powers of the states are many and undefined. This is how the gov't ran until FRD threatened to pack the Supreme Court and abused the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Power.
Yes the Constitution was designed so that it could be changed, but that was supposed to be through the amendment process; not by Congress making up virtually any law they want.
The Founders were deathly afraid of a democracy. That is why they designed a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep desiding whats for dinner.
I definitely disagree with this. The way the Constitution was written was to limit the federal gov't power. The Constitution basically says that it can only do a few specific things and the states have the power to do everything else. To paraphrase Madison: the powers of the federal gov't are few and defined, the powers of the states are many and undefined. This is how the gov't ran until FRD threatened to pack the Supreme Court and abused the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Power.
Yes the Constitution was designed so that it could be changed, but that was supposed to be through the amendment process; not by Congress making up virtually any law they want.
The Founders were deathly afraid of a democracy. That is why they designed a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep desiding whats for dinner.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Ummm...yeah. Not sure anything else needs to be said here. Although, I do have to admire how MinnFan learned so much about the inner thoughts of pepole who died 200 years ago. Must be conducting seances from his mom's basement with all that free time he has from not having a job.
BTW - Long, long before FDR's day the ship sailed on the feds only doing what's specifically spelled out in the Constitution when the Louisiana Purchase was being debated. The crux of Jefferson's argument was that nothing in the Constitution forbid him from purchasing the land. Last time I checked all that territory is still part of the US, but feel free to challenge that again to the SCOTUS if you'd like.
Ummm...yeah. Not sure anything else needs to be said here. Although, I do have to admire how MinnFan learned so much about the inner thoughts of pepole who died 200 years ago. Must be conducting seances from his mom's basement with all that free time he has from not having a job.
BTW - Long, long before FDR's day the ship sailed on the feds only doing what's specifically spelled out in the Constitution when the Louisiana Purchase was being debated. The crux of Jefferson's argument was that nothing in the Constitution forbid him from purchasing the land. Last time I checked all that territory is still part of the US, but feel free to challenge that again to the SCOTUS if you'd like.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Three of them wrote their beliefs into the Federalist Papers at great length, and there are also a lot of notes from the Philadelphia Convention. There was actually a lot of variance in the Founders' positions, and partisans today cherry-pick quotes or even play "who gets to be called a Founder." Suffice that all the debates we are having today about the pros and cons of strong central government have been continuous for 234 years, and even back in the day it was an even split. One might even say there was a relative bias in favor of central control, since the whole point of revising the Articles of Confederation was that the experiment of having a weak federal government and strong states had been tried and had failed.
Three of them wrote their beliefs into the Federalist Papers at great length, and there are also a lot of notes from the Philadelphia Convention. There was actually a lot of variance in the Founders' positions, and partisans today cherry-pick quotes or even play "who gets to be called a Founder." Suffice that all the debates we are having today about the pros and cons of strong central government have been continuous for 234 years, and even back in the day it was an even split. One might even say there was a relative bias in favor of central control, since the whole point of revising the Articles of Confederation was that the experiment of having a weak federal government and strong states had been tried and had failed.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
And failed again when the South tried to do it during the Civil War. States having equal or more power than the central gov't has such a great track record.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Any of you folks with cracker babies should watch out
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Any of you folks with cracker babies should watch out
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN67KJdd6Mw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
You're fighting a hopeless battle. Nuance is lost on these people. Revisionist history more and more predominates.
You're fighting a hopeless battle. Nuance is lost on these people. Revisionist history more and more predominates.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.
Which they just screwed you over with, as they're talking about the need for a strong government. Hence the part about "...in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government."
Sooo....are you for government or are you against it? And do you often argue with yourself?
Which they just screwed you over with, as they're talking about the need for a strong government.
Hence the part about "...in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government."Sooo....are you for government or are you against it? And do you often argue with yourself?
- Status