Republican War on Themselves

[Symmetry]

Quite a rant you've got going on there, with a lot of the usual tripe that substitutes anger and length for actual arguments.

Personally, and I find your question and the rant surrounding it a little odd, I'd say that human rights should be derived by a consensus. A grouping of nations who can come together and set down what the basic set of rights they all share.

Something along the lines of the UN declaration of human rights, for example. A declaration that the US voted in favour of, in fact, and helped draft.

You might be a little surprised to know that I understand NS's positions pretty well- I'm not sure even he would accuse me of ignorance concerning US politics, but we simply disagree. Your bizarre white knighting for NS's damsel in distress is misplaced on both accounts. NS can stand up to my criticisms, and I'm no dirty outsider ogre.

Well, the ogre part might be true.

If a group of people came together to decide what rights people should have, what's to stop them or another group of people to sit down at a later time and change those rights? That's why the Declaration of Independence states that the rights we have come from Nature and Nature's God and that governments are instituted among men in order to protect those rights from being violated. The governments are not instituted to create and define rights: they are to protect the rights that already exist.

I understand that you have a particular religious take on this issue, but you have to acknowledge that even the US Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, were products of consensus between people. They were, in fact, precisely examples of a government being formed creating and defining rights.

[Night Strike]

Quite a rant you've got going on there, with a lot of the usual tripe that substitutes anger and length for actual arguments.

Personally, and I find your question and the rant surrounding it a little odd, I'd say that human rights should be derived by a consensus. A grouping of nations who can come together and set down what the basic set of rights they all share.

Something along the lines of the UN declaration of human rights, for example. A declaration that the US voted in favour of, in fact, and helped draft.

You might be a little surprised to know that I understand NS's positions pretty well- I'm not sure even he would accuse me of ignorance concerning US politics, but we simply disagree. Your bizarre white knighting for NS's damsel in distress is misplaced on both accounts. NS can stand up to my criticisms, and I'm no dirty outsider ogre.

Well, the ogre part might be true.

If a group of people came together to decide what rights people should have, what's to stop them or another group of people to sit down at a later time and change those rights? That's why the Declaration of Independence states that the rights we have come from Nature and Nature's God and that governments are instituted among men in order to protect those rights from being violated. The governments are not instituted to create and define rights: they are to protect the rights that already exist.

I understand that you have a particular religious take on this issue, but you have to acknowledge that even the US Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, were products of consensus between people. They were, in fact, precisely examples of a government being formed creating and defining rights.

Have you read the declaration? They were forming this government because they believed that the King of England was violating the rights inherent in all people from God as their Creator.

[Symmetry]

Quite a rant you've got going on there, with a lot of the usual tripe that substitutes anger and length for actual arguments.

Personally, and I find your question and the rant surrounding it a little odd, I'd say that human rights should be derived by a consensus. A grouping of nations who can come together and set down what the basic set of rights they all share.

Something along the lines of the UN declaration of human rights, for example. A declaration that the US voted in favour of, in fact, and helped draft.

You might be a little surprised to know that I understand NS's positions pretty well- I'm not sure even he would accuse me of ignorance concerning US politics, but we simply disagree. Your bizarre white knighting for NS's damsel in distress is misplaced on both accounts. NS can stand up to my criticisms, and I'm no dirty outsider ogre.

Well, the ogre part might be true.

If a group of people came together to decide what rights people should have, what's to stop them or another group of people to sit down at a later time and change those rights? That's why the Declaration of Independence states that the rights we have come from Nature and Nature's God and that governments are instituted among men in order to protect those rights from being violated. The governments are not instituted to create and define rights: they are to protect the rights that already exist.

I understand that you have a particular religious take on this issue, but you have to acknowledge that even the US Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, were products of consensus between people. They were, in fact, precisely examples of a government being formed creating and defining rights.

Have you read the declaration? They were forming this government because they believed that the King of England was violating the rights inherent in all people from God as their Creator.

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

[thegreekdog]

Demographics come into it, though, right? A growing hispanic population, and a more prosperous African American population, as well as other ethnic minority voices, and women having a greater voice, not to mention homosexuals and their friends and family. Let's face it, the GOP is alienating these groups as they grow. Either through the policies they support, or by the policies they are portrayed as supporting, it doesn't really matter.

Playing to an increasingly hard-core of supporters simply won't work in the long run, especially on social issues. Fiscal issues have always been the Repubs strengths, but haven't really played out in practice. Meh- my two pence.

This hits all the nails on their respective heads. I agree with Symmetry (on this post, not so much his others)... perish the thought. Being a Republican used to mean smaller government. Now it means small government fiscally, except that in reality it's not really that either.

That being said, the key phrase here is "they are protrayed as supporting" which goes to the alienation of non-white, non-male voters. There is no particular reason why hispanics, blacks, other ethnic minorities (although I've read somewhere that Asians, Indian-Asians, and most Arab-born people are Republicans... I have to find that article, it's very interesting), and women should be naturally in opposition to Republicans (even in the party's current state).

I think the president has effectively taken away the "big business" and "WAR!" mantles from the Republicans in the last four years, which is ironic since his doing that signifies the failure of the Democrat party as well.

[Night Strike]

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

And has been pointed out, the Founding Fathers DID fight for the removal of slavery from the new country. However, they could not get enough support from the southern states to form the country if slavery was removed. Instead, they instituted mechanisms that would make sure the southern states did not gain too much power to make slavery permanent as well as made a way to amend the Constitution to later outlaw the practice.

[Symmetry]

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

And has been pointed out, the Founding Fathers DID fight for the removal of slavery from the new country. However, they could not get enough support from the southern states to form the country if slavery was removed. Instead, they instituted mechanisms that would make sure the southern states did not gain too much power to make slavery permanent as well as made a way to amend the Constitution to later outlaw the practice.

Did they? All of them? How sure are you on that? Jefferson raped his slave, didn't he? Had children by her that he didn't acknowledge. I'm not trying to demonise the guy, but he wasn't some anti-slavery campaigning saint, setting the groundwork for a bright future where men wouldn't have to own people.

[patches70]

There hasn't been slavery in the US for over 145 years. However, in Europe there certainly is a type of slavery, debt slavery.

Just ask Greece. The austerity measures enacted by Law on the authority of the EU even went so far as to retroactively apply those measures to past payment of State employees. Those employees had to pay back some of what they were paid in the past. Talk about robbing a person! LOL "Yeah, well, it seems that we paid you too much and now you have to give that money back. Oh? What's that? You already spent your wages? That's ok, we'll deduct as we go until the debt is paid back in full."

Try that in the US and see what happens. Well, I guess the teachers would raise hell.

You see, when one accepts the premise that Government determines what individual's rights are then that government can deny those rights as well as grant them. Imagine your employer saying "Sym, well, the company is going through some rough times so we'll have to take back a bit of that money we paid you from the last six months or so. Don't bother trying to fight it or anything, the measure was approved by the Board. If you quit we'll just put a lien on your pay at your next job and you won't be eligible for any social programs until the debt is paid. Thank's for your understanding on this matter. Now get to work, we got a company to save."

And that's what is going on in Greece. Poor bastards. Apparently, in Greece, one only has a right to their wages if the government deems it ok. This is an actual case today of government giving and taking away with the stroke of the legislative pen.

You see, if you think you have a right to education then ask yourself, can you go over to your neighbor's house and demand that he teach you?
Can you go to your neighbor and demand that he treat your injury without having to pay any compensation?
Can you go to your neighbor and demand "I need a place to live. Give me your house or build me a house." and not have to compensate him?
Can you go to your neighbor and demand "I need training to get a job, you provide that training for me." and not pay him for that training?
Can you go to your neighbor and demand "I need a job, so I'll do a job and you must pay me <X> amount." and he be forced to provide regardless of his own economic standing?
And if the neighbor says he doesn't want to do those things for you (especially if you don't pay him for those services), can you force him? Physically force him to provide those service, be it threatening harm or imprisonment upon him?

And what if your neighbor says- "You know, I really don't like you much or really wish to get involve with your problems so I'll just go ahead and pass on teaching you/providing health care/ provide food/ provide you with a place to live/ job training/ a job"?

What then? Do you have a right to force him to provide those things for you? Or do you have a right to barter, to make a deal and come to an agreement on those things? And if those agreements fail to satisfy both parties, what then?

Governments that attempt to grant rights that others must provide without ability to negotiate a fair and equitable trade between two free individuals, then what happens is someone gets screwed.
If the Government says you have a right to have a job then someone must be forced to provide that job even against his wishes.
And so on and so on.

And if it's the government that must provide those jobs that you have a right to, then you'll find yourself eventually in the situation of nations like Greece (and eventually Spain, Ireland, Portugal, right on down the line). Then you'll see that what you thought was a right will be taken away with the snap of the fingers.

True rights don't cost anything. If you tailor those rights as individual rights and understand the origin and nature of those rights. True rights are a benefit to a society, rights based on desire or desired outcomes are an expense that ever keeps growing in cost day after day, year after year until the whole thing collapses under it's excesses. Just like what is happening to the EU.

In the collapse of society government turns from being the granter of rights to the denier of rights. Totalitarianism.

A society is foolish to grant rights to a government that the individuals within that society don't have intrinsically.

[comic boy]

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

And has been pointed out, the Founding Fathers DID fight for the removal of slavery from the new country. However, they could not get enough support from the southern states to form the country if slavery was removed. Instead, they instituted mechanisms that would make sure the southern states did not gain too much power to make slavery permanent as well as made a way to amend the Constitution to later outlaw the practice.

Were the Native Indians covered by the constitution or simply ignored ?

[Phatscotty]

This is the race hustle, labeling the Republican party as the "white" party, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's total proof of the narrowmindedness of people who try to stereotype the Republican party as old white men.

The facts: just barely over 50% of Caucasians vote Republican (which means almost 50% of Caucasians vote Democrat...), where as well over 95% of African American's vote Democratic. As usual, these posters have it ass backwards. Also, about 40% of Asians and Hispanics voted Republican in 2010.

If some of you posters want to accuse racism based on skin color's loyalty to a party, it aint in the Republican party and it aint the Caucasians...

[PLAYER57832]

There hasn't been slavery in the US for over 145 years. However, in Europe there certainly is a type of slavery, debt slavery.

Just ask Greece. The austerity measures enacted by Law on the authority of the EU even went so far as to retroactively apply those measures to past payment of State employees. Those employees had to pay back some of what they were paid in the past. Talk about robbing a person! LOL "Yeah, well, it seems that we paid you too much and now you have to give that money back. Oh? What's that? You already spent your wages? That's ok, we'll deduct as we go until the debt is paid back in full."

Try that in the US and see what happens. Well, I guess the teachers would raise hell.

In the US, we are even more enslaved to debt, but it is held by mostly private entities who have not even the morals of the government to hold them back. And, I don't mean the folks who think they have to have 3 cars, 100 tennis shoes, etc. I mean people losing their homes and worse because they got sick, were cheated in their mortgages, etc. Those others exist, sure. However, they exist because our country is built on consumerism. Those same people who criticize the "average american" for "buying too much" are the same ones so willing to create a system that depends on those people doing just that.

Per the rest.. I heard an argument recently that Europe actually did not have a debt problem, they had a mortgage problem. I will have to dig it up, because I only caught bits and pieces.

[PLAYER57832]

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

And has been pointed out, the Founding Fathers DID fight for the removal of slavery from the new country. However, they could not get enough support from the southern states to form the country if slavery was removed. Instead, they instituted mechanisms that would make sure the southern states did not gain too much power to make slavery permanent as well as made a way to amend the Constitution to later outlaw the practice.

Were the Native Indians covered by the constitution or simply ignored ?

Neither they nor blacks were considered full people until basically the 1960's. Even then, it took a great deal of fighting to ensure that a black man could get a professional job in Pittsburgh instead of just the most dangerous and lowest paying steel mill jobs (no matter his education level), etc, etc.

That said, I believe Nightstrike is partially correct in saying this is not about race. The wealthy elite, the very conservative wealthy elite, really don't care much about anyone not in "their class".

[Phatscotty]

I have indeed read it, and in the past pointed out that even the truths held self evident didn't apply to all people equally. What with the slaves and all that. So, no, they really didn't believe what you're saying they believed.

And has been pointed out, the Founding Fathers DID fight for the removal of slavery from the new country. However, they could not get enough support from the southern states to form the country if slavery was removed. Instead, they instituted mechanisms that would make sure the southern states did not gain too much power to make slavery permanent as well as made a way to amend the Constitution to later outlaw the practice.

Were the Native Indians covered by the constitution or simply ignored ?

Neither they nor blacks were considered full people until basically the 1960's. Even then, it took a great deal of fighting to ensure that a black man could get a professional job in Pittsburgh instead of just the most dangerous and lowest paying steel mill jobs (no matter his education level), etc, etc.

That said, I believe Nightstrike is partially correct in saying this is not about race. The wealthy elite, the very conservative wealthy elite, really don't care much about anyone not in "their class".

In a free country and as a free person, should one be forced to care about one person more than another?
Also, I have a comment for the wealthy elite very liberal wealthy elite also. They don't care about anyone not in their class. Caring about controlling people that are not in their class doesn't count as caring for them...

[Night Strike]

but it is held by mostly private entities who have not even the morals of the government to hold them back.

Now THAT is funny. The only morals the government has is the desire for more power and removal of our Constitutional freedoms by replacing them with the "right" of wealth redistribution.

[rdsrds2120]

but it is held by mostly private entities who have not even the morals of the government to hold them back.

Now THAT is funny. The only morals the government has is the desire for more power and removal of our Constitutional freedoms by replacing them with the "right" of wealth redistribution.

I doubt most government personnel wake up in the morning and wonder to themselves, "How can I restrict the freedoms of my constituents?".

Most people in those positions probably want what's best for this country, but deciding what's best for the country is the tricky part. For example, I completely oppose most of your political views, but I have no doubt that you want what's best for the country. Accusing the majority of the government of merely wanting to remove your constitutional freedom as a premise for their goals is extreme.

-rd

[Night Strike]

but it is held by mostly private entities who have not even the morals of the government to hold them back.

Now THAT is funny. The only morals the government has is the desire for more power and removal of our Constitutional freedoms by replacing them with the "right" of wealth redistribution.

I doubt most government personnel wake up in the morning and wonder to themselves, "How can I restrict the freedoms of my constituents?".

Most people in those positions probably want what's best for this country, but deciding what's best for the country is the tricky part. For example, I completely oppose most of your political views, but I have no doubt that you want what's best for the country. Accusing the majority of the government of merely wanting to remove your constitutional freedom as a premise for their goals is extreme.

-rd

When everyone in the government wakes up each morning and wonders "What new government program can we work on designing today", then yes, they do want to restrict our freedoms. Obama's comments last year during the debt ceiling debate were completely telling and unfortunately very under-covered by the media (even conservative media) when he said that "The American people would rather have us discussing new programs than whether or not to raise the debt ceiling." No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist because they are draining both our freedoms and our wallets. What is best for our country is to follow the Constitution. Everything else is up to the states and local government and can be debated on those levels.

[Lootifer]

I work for a state owned enterprise. My thoughts on the way to work (you dont want to know what I think about as I wake up) are "how can I increase my businesses value the most today?".

I guess im just a unique snowflake eh?

[rdsrds2120]

When everyone in the government wakes up each morning and wonders "What new government program can we work on designing today", then yes, they do want to restrict our freedoms. Obama's comments last year during the debt ceiling debate were completely telling and unfortunately very under-covered by the media (even conservative media) when he said that "The American people would rather have us discussing new programs than whether or not to raise the debt ceiling." No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist because they are draining both our freedoms and our wallets. What is best for our country is to follow the Constitution. Everything else is up to the states and local government and can be debated on those levels.

You're relying on the assumption that you're right:

"What is best for our country is to follow the Constitution."
"No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist"
"When everyone in the government wakes up each morning and wonders 'What new government program can we work on designing today', then yes, they do want to restrict our freedoms."

Besides the begging the question fallacy, anyone could provide counterexamples to those. Like, who's the collective "we" in that paragraph? And how do you know that's what the "we" wants? How do we know that following the Constitution strictly is the best idea? Since it is inherently flawed (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be amendments), how can that always be true?

-rd

[Night Strike]

When everyone in the government wakes up each morning and wonders "What new government program can we work on designing today", then yes, they do want to restrict our freedoms. Obama's comments last year during the debt ceiling debate were completely telling and unfortunately very under-covered by the media (even conservative media) when he said that "The American people would rather have us discussing new programs than whether or not to raise the debt ceiling." No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist because they are draining both our freedoms and our wallets. What is best for our country is to follow the Constitution. Everything else is up to the states and local government and can be debated on those levels.

You're relying on the assumption that you're right:

"What is best for our country is to follow the Constitution."
"No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist"
"When everyone in the government wakes up each morning and wonders 'What new government program can we work on designing today', then yes, they do want to restrict our freedoms."

Besides the begging the question fallacy, anyone could provide counterexamples to those. Like, who's the collective "we" in that paragraph? And how do you know that's what the "we" wants? How do we know that following the Constitution strictly is the best idea? Since it is inherently flawed (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be amendments), how can that always be true?

-rd

If the Constitution is inherently flawed, then you amend it. Until it's amended, you can't just make changes because you deem it necessary. There is a set amendment process to follow. But the Constitution is not inherently flawed, so another false argument. And your entire reasoning for ignoring the Constitution is that it allows for amendments to be made and is therefore flawed is completely irrational. Using your logic, the entire Constitution is irrelevant and can be discarded in order for the government to do anything they want. So much for the rule of law. Following the Constitution isn't only the best idea for the country, but it's the ONLY idea the federal government is allowed to follow. That's what the rule of law means.

If you want to answer the collective we question, you should go ask the president. He's the one who made that statement last year (August I believe). I'm guessing he was referring to his administration and Congress.

[Lootifer]

Are you a fan of federalism NS? (honest question - not living in a federal country I dont know a whole lot about it).

[rdsrds2120]

And your entire reasoning for ignoring the Constitution

I never reasoned for that. I was just saying that the Constitution might not always be right, so maybe certain parts of it shouldn't be held to the be all end all of what we do.

If you want to answer the collective we question, you should go ask the president. He's the one who made that statement last year (August I believe). I'm guessing he was referring to his administration and Congress.

So your statement:
"No Mr. President, we want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist"

Now reads:
"No Mr. President, the Obama administration and Congress want you to STOP creating new governmental programs and instead start cutting many of the ones that already exist"

I'm having trouble following you.

-rd

[Night Strike]

And your entire reasoning for ignoring the Constitution

I never reasoned for that. I was just saying that the Constitution might not always be right, so maybe certain parts of it shouldn't be held to the be all end all of what we do.

-rd

If it's not right, then there is a specific process for amending it. Until an amendment is ratified, the federal government can't just ignore the parts it doesn't like.

Are you a fan of federalism NS? (honest question - not living in a federal country I dont know a whole lot about it).

Yep. Federalism is exactly what this nation was founded on. The states were supposed to have the most power in the country with the federal government having a minimal amount (in fact, only those expressed powers written in the Constitution).

[Lootifer]

Yep. Federalism is exactly what this nation was founded on. The states were supposed to have the most power in the country with the federal government having a minimal amount (in fact, only those expressed powers written in the Constitution).

Interesting. I kind of agree and kind of dont.

It's great in theory; but I think it's failed in practice. Now im sure you will cite that the issues are all sourced from a central government trying to get bigger, which probably accounts for a decent amount of it; but I also feel that the simple existence of a [neccessary] relationship between a central government and 50-odd states means you guys were destined to end up where you guys are.

I mean FIFTY independent states? Holy moley thats a lotta fricken politicans...

When NZ cracks the 10 million people mark I certainly wont be voting for an independent south island; which is about average for your typical US state (280/50 = 5-6 million people per independent government). Just a culture thing obviously, but lawdy that seems crazy to me.

[patches70]

Yep. Federalism is exactly what this nation was founded on. The states were supposed to have the most power in the country with the federal government having a minimal amount (in fact, only those expressed powers written in the Constitution).

Interesting. I kind of agree and kind of dont.

It's great in theory; but I think it's failed in practice. Now im sure you will cite that the issues are all sourced from a central government trying to get bigger, which probably accounts for a decent amount of it; but I also feel that the simple existence of a [neccessary] relationship between a central government and 50-odd states means you guys were destined to end up where you guys are.

I mean FIFTY independent states? Holy moley thats a lotta fricken politicans...

When NZ cracks the 10 million people mark I certainly wont be voting for an independent south island; which is about average for your typical US state (280/50 = 5-6 million people per independent government). Just a culture thing obviously, but lawdy that seems crazy to me.

The Founder's wanted Americans to be independent minded and self sufficient. They didn't want Americans walking lock step like robots bowing before a Monarch (or government).

By spreading the power over the largest number of people is a way of keeping power from becoming concentrated and thus breed tyrants.
Is not the argument of liberals, the "99%" and many other groups that too much wealth and power has been concentrated into the hands of only a few?

You see, our Founder's understood this happens and Federalism is a way to keep that power from being concentrated. Concentrated power to benefit the few at the detriment of the many.
By keeping localities with the greater power it gives the individuals within those localities greater say in how things are done.

[Night Strike]

Yep. Federalism is exactly what this nation was founded on. The states were supposed to have the most power in the country with the federal government having a minimal amount (in fact, only those expressed powers written in the Constitution).

Interesting. I kind of agree and kind of dont.

It's great in theory; but I think it's failed in practice. Now im sure you will cite that the issues are all sourced from a central government trying to get bigger, which probably accounts for a decent amount of it; but I also feel that the simple existence of a [neccessary] relationship between a central government and 50-odd states means you guys were destined to end up where you guys are.

I mean FIFTY independent states? Holy moley thats a lotta fricken politicans...

When NZ cracks the 10 million people mark I certainly wont be voting for an independent south island; which is about average for your typical US state (280/50 = 5-6 million people per independent government). Just a culture thing obviously, but lawdy that seems crazy to me.

They aren't independent in the sense that they have their own currencies, military (although they do have state national guards), etc. Every state already has its own governments and have always had them. Previously, the state legislators elected the US Senators so that the state governments would actually have a say and control over the federal government. States are just like provinces in other countries, it's just that in the US they are supposed to have more power than the federal government.

[Lootifer]

*snip*

For sure, I was just referring to efficiencies and all that.

Regarding your argument abotu tyrants in government; my question would be: is it not the best idea to remove the cause (setup a system where tyrants cant get into power) rather than treat the problem after infection (dilute the power tyranical politicians have)...?