2 debate questions the Prez will never get....but should

[bucfan64 309]

(1) Mr. President, you speak frequently of "fairness," of doing one's "fair share," and so on. Of course, "fairness" is an abstract concept. Furthermore, it is not a political system. Rather, it expresses the intended result of one political system or other, depending on how one defines "fairness." For example, one might say that the free market promotes fairness, if by fairness we mean that everyone has what he is able to earn by his own effort, with his own talent, and through uncoerced interaction with others. On the other hand, a socialist would define fairness as everyone getting an equal share of the available material wealth, by means of continuously regulated and maintained government redistribution.

 

So I would like you to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by fairness, and which politico-economic system -- the free market, socialism, or some other system -- is most conducive to your understanding of fairness. In short, is freedom or socialism fairer, in your view, and why?

 

(2) The American founders, following John Locke and others, were strong defenders of property rights. Specifically, they believed, as Locke explained, that all human beings inviolably own themselves as individual material beings, and hence that the product of their effort and voluntary exchange with others belongs to them, by extension from their initial and natural ownership of their own bodies and minds.

 

Various federal government programs and regulations you support, such as ObamaCare and many EPA initiatives, fly in the face of this notion of a natural right to property. Do you believe in private property as a right? And if so, on what grounds do you believe that this right can be violated?

[redtiger 1,742]

Not bad questions. Youre right he will never be asked them.

 

Fairness is a vague term and really shouldnt be used in such a broad sense.

 

I dont agree with the redistribution of wealth in the communist sense that "everyone should be completly equal" but I do support it to an extent. Whats wrong with everyone who makes over 1 million a year paying a tax rate of 40% on everything over their 1st million? Is it gonna hurt them to pay that? Are they not gonna be able to own any reasonable thing that they couldnt have paying a lower tax rate? Are they working harder to get that huge ammount of money? Or are they just profiting off of the labor of others? I dont want to see the "rich" stripped of their wealth and that money used to pay for free healthcare and housing(which VA is currently doing) but I dont see what is wrong with having those who have more to give more to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity to succeed in this world(i.e. education, health care to those who cannot provide it for themselves, Social Security). I do not and will never agree that gov handouts and free checks are the right thing(I dont really agree with the SSDI system we currently use). Gov supplements and gov aid are fine imo

 

As far as general healthcare for everyone, im split on that. If you are -18 or +65 or have a health issue such as cancer, I think everyone in America should chip in and help you pay for that. If you are 19-59 and work a part time job(or no job) and dont have health insurance well thats your fault. Go get another job to pay for your insurance or go to college/trade school and get a better job. I think Obamacare is VERY flawed and I dont support it but it is imo a step in the right direction.

Edited August 24, 2012 by redtiger

[BigBlueAlum 12]

If you are 19-59 and work a part time job(or no job) and dont have health insurance well thats your fault. Go get another job to pay for your insurance or go to college/trade school and get a better job.

 

Because its that easy....

 

Have you ever had to buy your own insurance? Have you tried to find a full time job recently? No offense, but if you haven't then you probably have no idea how difficult it can be.

 

The issue isn't always paying for a health insurance policy on your own, it's that insurance companies will literally find any reason possible to deny you coverage. Just two years ago, my wife had trouble getting coverage while she was between jobs even though she was 25 and extremely healthy.

 

You are incredibly naive if you think it is always as simple as working and extra job or going back to school.

 

Besides, the affordable care act doesn't provide government funded healthcare for everyone, it only ensures that everyone can have access to health insurance by prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, that included the individual mandate that requires everyone to have health insurance coverage or pay a fee to the government for not having health insurance. This is to keep people from taking advantage of insurance companies, by waiting until they are sick before they buy insurance, since the companies cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. The Affordable Care Act also does several other things to help reform the broken health insurance system that we have now...but you know, it's all just a bunch of socialism.

[mavsgrad 28]

First off, I do have a personal health care policy which wasn't hard to get and is affordable on a middle class income. Secondly I do agree that our health care system certainly needs to be fixed and I do feel for people who are unable to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

However, there are some things I think people who support Obamacare should think about. First, the founding fathers didn't intend for the government to be some parent organization to care for all the needs and wants of its citizens. The Preamble to the Constitution says that the primary responsibility of the government is to ensure domestic tranquility (which means keeping peace at home through law enforcement), to provide for the common defense (which means having a military to protect us from outside threatening forces), and promote the general welfare (which means creating an enviroment where people have the opportunity to work hard and better themselves). The idea that citizens have the right to things like health insurance and unemployment benefits that last almost two years is not found in the writings of the founders of this country and it is very dangerous.

There is such a sense of entitlement in this country today. If you look on your cell phone bill you will find a line that says "other charges or other fees". That is where you and I are helping pay a cell phone bill for someone else that can't afford it themelves. They can't afford a cell phone but they think they have a right to own won and so you and I have to pay for it. The government should not be responsible to provide all these things to citizens. Part of Obamacare helps pay for contraception and concervatives are slammed as women haters for not supporting that. Idk about you but I don't think the government has any business in our bedrooms and if you can't afford contraception of some kind, there is always abstinence.

I've rambled on long enough but let me finish by pointing out two dangers to all of this government provision and citizen entitlement stuff. First if you keep taxing the upper and middle class to death in order to give hand outs to the lower class two things will happen: First the lower class will never seek to better themselves because they are getting a free hand out and second those who were working hard will stop because their hard work is rewarded by the government taking a large chunk of their money and giving it away.

The other thing to keep in mind is "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." The more you rely on the government for your livelihood the more power they hold over you.

[Hacker 82]

I care not to enter this discussion, but just want to correct a slight inaccuracy. John Locke was a 17th Century English Philosopher whose ideas and writings influenced the founding fathers, not a founder himself. It is important to distinguish between his espousal of "life, liberty, and property" from Jefferson's espousal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that is found in the Declaration of Independence.

 

To my mind, the Jeffersonian view is much broader. It recognizes that property itself is only so important, and that we are not all guaranteed happiness, just the right to pursue it.

[bucfan64 309]

The idea that citizens have the right to things like health insurance and unemployment benefits that last almost two years is not found in the writings of the founders of this country and it is very dangerous.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." The more you rely on the government for your livelihood the more power they hold over you.

 

Well Said!!!!!

 

TO RED TIGER: First off I am not trying to argue with you on this issue. However, I think that you are more than entitled to your opinion and I respect your views. Nonetheless, the point that I think that you are missing is the fact that wealth redistribution without consent is THEFT and it is denying the God given natural right of a human being to take that which is the fruit of his or her labor.........ie (property)!

 

The Founders were inspired by John Locke and they believed in Natural Law, according to them, mankind in the state of nature, is ENDOWED BY HIS CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights and among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (John Locke said, Life, Liberty and Property.)

 

Do all Americans believe this? No

Do all Americans understand the foundation of our nation? No

 

Does this principle matter? YES!

 

The prosperity that this nation has experienced, the greatest prosperity in the history of the world, is largely responsible for the understanding in the power of the individual to create and prosper at his own hand, through hard work, ingenuity and effort.

 

To suggest that we take from others, just because they "don't need all of that money," is to stand on another principle and a different foundation other than the one the Founders established. Now, understand this doesn't make anyone who differs with them or me on this issue evil or corrupt, I am just saying that it stands in opposition to fundamental principles of THIS nations founding.

 

Likewise, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to help one another, to be charitable to their fellow man, to help those in need. This too is a fundamental principle and I will admit that it is one that we as a people have neglected. And in my opinion, the reason that we now think or expect the government to do the giving for can be attributed to a lack of understanding concerning our founding principles and a lack of morality.

 

In essence, it appears that we as Americans have outsourced so many things in our lives that are now outsourcing our moral duty to the likes of government. America thrived for years without a social welfare system, because communities helped each other, neighbors helped one another, people were charitable to their fellow American brothers and sisters.

 

With that being said, I understand your position, but I also have an understanding of the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded and I can assure you that wealth re-distribution was not one of those principles.

 

Who are we to decide when someone or anyone has enough money?

 

The principle of wealth distribution goes something like this.....

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"

 

by the way it was Karl Marx that made this quote famous!

Edited August 25, 2012 by bucfan64

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Because its that easy....

 

Have you ever had to buy your own insurance? Have you tried to find a full time job recently? No offense, but if you haven't then you probably have no idea how difficult it can be.

 

The issue isn't always paying for a health insurance policy on your own, it's that insurance companies will literally find any reason possible to deny you coverage. Just two years ago, my wife had trouble getting coverage while she was between jobs even though she was 25 and extremely healthy.

 

You are incredibly naive if you think it is always as simple as working and extra job or going back to school.

 

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redtiger 1,742]

This thread has alot of various points and most of which I would like to address. Also understand that im not trying to argue with anyone and if I came off that way then I apologize. bucfan64, this is a good discussion, one that needs to happen in this country out in the open without anyone pointing fingers or accusing ecah other of wrong doing or being a socialist. So, I dont think you are trying to argue with me and I am glad that you responded to my response.

 

First a little about me. I am 27 years old and attend college(history major, w/ some political science) and work part time(32 hours a week). I do not currently have health care because I got my paperwork in too late(over 30 days after I moved up to 32 hours a week), I will be getting insurance begining in September, when my companies policy updates/ renews/ whatever. So, yes, I know exactly how difficult it is, no health or dental since I aged out of my parents plan and I have been working a tax paying job since I was 18.

 

 

Obviously my 1st response was too narrow and I left out alot of key issues with our current health care system. I am just tired of seeing people and their spouses who work 20 hours a week or dont work at all complaining that they dont have health care. Insurance companies denying coverage for any small reason, droping people from coverage and denying coverage to people with preexisting coinditions is wrong and shouldnt be allowed, imo its the Govs job to prevent those type of abuses. and I completly agree that our current system is broken, not just the health care system but the whole thing. BigBlueAlum, assuming you work a full time job, your wife should have been covered thru your insurance until she returned to a job or if she decided to be a housewife imo. The fact that she wasnt is, imo, wrong and one of the many things that need to be addressed.

 

As far as Socialism goes, whats wrong with a little socialism? We live in a Socialist state already, albeit a limited one.

 

Taking from others in the form of higher tax rates for the more wealthy is not, like you said, standing on the principle established by our founders. But I think our founders looked at America as a country in which each citizen would gladly pay his "fair" share for the greater good. Thats not happening; large companies and wealthy individuals are, from my point of view, always looking to increase profits(moving jobs overseas, providing poorer services, producing cheaper goods, and finding loop holes to lower their tax rates). So if we as a nation arent adhering to the founding principals then something needs to be done. Big companies and the wealthy need to be reigned in, the question is how do we do that?

 

I do not support a huge Socialist state where we all allow the Gov to make our decisions for us, take care of us, and controll our actions. But I dont like where things are going currently either(shrinking middle class and record profits for the wealthy). I dont think the "trickle down system" works, nor to I think the "handouts to the poor/gov assistance system" will work.

 

"In essence, it appears that we as Americans have outsourced so many things in our lives that are now outsourcing our moral duty to the likes of government. America thrived for years without a social welfare system, because communities helped each other, neighbors helped one another, people were charitable to their fellow American brothers and sisters."

If we arent doing those things, then what is the answer?

 

We do not have the right to decide that another citizen has enough money, there should never be a cap on how much a citizen has, never. Its our right to prosper without a limit. But if you have more than you should give more.

 

bucfan64, you keep refering to the principles set forth by our founders, we havent followed those principles since the Great Depression. Imo there is no need to try to revert back to them now

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"

I missed the point that you were trying to make with this quote, Please explain?

That quote is exactly what I am arguing for.

Edited August 25, 2012 by redtiger

[BigBlueAlum 12]

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Wait...what just happened?

[BigBlueAlum 12]

T BigBlueAlum, assuming you work a full time job, your wife should have been covered thru your insurance until she returned to a job or if she decided to be a housewife imo. The fact that she wasnt is, imo, wrong and one of the many things that need to be addressed.

 

I did not work full time, at that time. Only two part time jobs. One of which was a 30 hour/week well paying job, but without benefits, the other was just to make some extra money. My wife left her full time, dead-end job with benefits to pursue a career that had much more promise, but it required her to drop down to part-time for a few months. That is when we had to find our own private insurance plan. I had no problem getting coverage, but my wife did, all because of a medication that she had previously been prescribed, even though she was/is in better shape and health than I am. I could just imagine how much trouble it would be if we were both a little older at the time with any past health issues.

[redtiger 1,742]

I personally consider working full time to be anything 40 hours a week or over(doesent matter how you get there; 2x20, 4x10, 2x15 + 1x10, whatever). You were working and paying your dues, you and your family should have been covered. Any system where that isint the case is, imo, flawed and needs to be fixed.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Wait...what just happened?

 

Bolding, italicizing, and underlining, it appears. ;)

[bucfan64 309]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"

I missed the point that you were trying to make with this quote, Please explain?

That quote is exactly what I am arguing for.

 

It is the same thing that KARL MARX argued for and he was a Communist! The purpose of socialism, according to its founder, is ultimately COMMUNISM.

 

This is where you and I differ, nonetheless, I can agree to disagree and from the tone of your post, I assume that you feel the same.

[bucfan64 309]

bucfan64, you keep refering to the principles set forth by our founders, we havent followed those principles since the Great Depression. Imo there is no need to try to revert back to them now

.

 

I believe that we MUST revert back to principles established by our Founding Fathers. If we are ever to experience a system that is less flawed,( there system was not perfect, but in my opinion, closer to perfect than any alternative) we must return and embrace the original intent of this nations founding.

 

I contend that the reason we see so many flaws in the "system" today is because of the fact that we have deviated from the original formuala.

 

In other words the very reason that we are having this discussion/debate is due to the fact that somewhere along the line, we decided it best to "try" something different in lieu of a more proven method of prosperity and freedom. The new method that we selected was nothing more than a system that was and is nothing more than a historically proven failure.

 

For this reason, is see "reverting back," as the only sensible solution!

Edited August 28, 2012 by bucfan64

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I believe that we MUST revert back to principles established by our Founding Fathers. If we are ever to experience a system that is less flawed,( there system was not perfect, but in my opinion, closer to perfect than any alternative) we must return and embrace the original intent of this nations founding.

 

I contend that the reason we see so many flaws in the "system" today is because of the fact that we have deviated from the original formuala. In other words the very reason that we are having this discussion/debate is due to the fact that somewhere along the line, we decided it best to "try" something that historically was and still is a proven failure. For this reason, the only solution that I can find is "reverting back," to a proven system!

 

Perhaps by going back, we could re-vitalize the nation and help capture the spirit that once made this country great!

 

This is all well, good, and patriotic, but how do you propose that we "revert back to principles established by our Founding Fathers" in an America that could not be more dissimilar from what the founding fathers experienced?

 

I ask this, because what you say here is not too dissimilar from what the Ron Paul nutjobs will say, not realizing that for every change we make to the system, there are significant consequences that will result, some positive, as many negative. Do we want to revert back to isolationism? Sure...but realize that our "isolationism" allowed both World Wars to drag on for 2-3 years longer than they should've. Do we want to revert back to an industrial and agrarian economy? Sure...but realize that in order to do that, you're going to have to do some heavy-duty revision to Title 29 of the U.S. Code, which will be fought tooth-and-nail by many of the labor unions that the changes would protect.

 

And if you're entirely literal in reverting back, do you want to include the three-fifths rule? What about the appointment, rather than election, of U.S. Senators? How about abandoning the Bill of Rights, something which came about only as a condition subsequent to getting the last few states to adopt the U.S. Constitution?

 

How about this. How about recognizing that we live in a world that's 220+ years removed from the days of which you're so fond? How about instead of saying "let's abandon this and get back to basics", let's say "we need to incorporate select principles of bygone days while ignoring others (gold standard, isolationism, etc.) that were abject failures"?

[redtiger 1,742]

Yeah, we have some opposing views, not really a problem to me.

 

Marx also believed that Communism was the pinnacle of evolution in Government. Judging by how the Communist countries have fared thats certainly not the case. Communist Govs have proven to be very corrupt and with time, unable to sustain themselves. Marx had some very good ideas and some not so good ones.

 

 

I believe in a core value of help those that need help and give if you have enough to give, moderate Socialism accompolishes that. Thats why I support some Socialist ideas. Look at BigBlueAlum, the man is working to support his family and his wife is trying to better herself and they were punished for it. Because she was seen as a financial risk, profit over people. I cant support a system that says thats ok and the system we have now does. I think going back to American founding values will only set this country up to have these same problems in the years to come. I would choose to learn from the lessons of the past and try to make something better. I also believe Americas strangth comes from the mixing of ideas and thats what I support, Socialism in my mind is a blending of Communism and Democracy. Maybe im using the wrong term, if so someone please correct me.

 

UVAO mentioned Ron Paul, the man is stuck in some fantasy! It would be nice to get back to the way things were if you are a wealthy white male. For the rest of us that way pretty much sucked. I heard RP argue that the US Gov should scrap the entire

college financial aid system because it didnt work, granted alot of people take advantage of their aid and it does need to be reformed. I personally wouldnt have a problem with doing away with free aid and just using gov subsidized loans but he wanted to do away WITH ALL OF IT! That means that if you dont come from money then you dont go to college. How anyone could support that man is beyond me!

Edited August 28, 2012 by redtiger

[bucfan64 309]

First of all, I support Ron Paul with passion and conviction! I do not agree with everything the man says, but many of his Libertarian views are in line with mine. Isolationism is a subject that he and I differ on, not to mention a few others.

 

How do we revert back? It would require cultural change, the change that so many today promote is a top down "Change." I believe that the individual must first become the "change that they want to see in the world," (Ghandi), this isn't a fantasy, this is reality. If people embrace the true spirit of individualism, they will adjust and reformulate the way that they live their life, they will strive to hold themselves accountable and strive to hold themselves to a higher standard, (think Christian values and morality) become more "Christ like."

 

If I thought that this was a fantasy, I would be ignoring the fact that it happened before, with the American Revolution, Enlightenment, and with the Great Awakening, 2nd Great Awakening. If it happened then, it can happen now, even if it is 225+ years later.

 

Second, I ask the question, "Why is America today, so dissimilar from the America of our Founders?" Answer: because we deviated away from those moral truths and principles that made us the greatest nation on earth. I firmly believe in absolutes, and I contend that many of those ideas can still stand the test of time! Hard work is not old fashioned, doing what is right is not old fashioned, being responsible for your actions and being accountable is not old fashioned, it was truth then, it is still truth today!

 

Reverting back, doesn't mean accepting past mistakes and repeating them, that is why we have the Contsitution, that is why we have amendments, we can view them and learn from past mistakes.

 

*****You speak of the 3/5ths Compromise as if it was a bad idea. Nothing could be further from the truth! The 3/5ths Compromise did not set out to establish a black man as 3/5ths of a man, instead it was a measure implemented by our Founders to hopefully eradicate slavery from our midst. They knew that Southerners would never agree to count a Black man as a full fledged member of society but by ONLY counting 3/5ths of the black population when it came census time, they hoped to eventually through the theory of gradualism, weaken the strength of Southern states and eventually discourage them from clinging to the institute of slavery! It was pretty simple, if and when slave holding states let go of the institute of slavery and granted freedom to ALL MEN, they could then count 100% of the black population when it came time for Representation, and benefit even more in our Legislative system*****

 

**** You also speak of Senatorial appointments as if it was a bad idea. You are assuming that the 17th Amendment was a good thing. Allow me to explain how it is one of the very things that has gradually led to the erosion of state sovereignty in this nation not too mention an out of control Federal government.

 

The Founders, with full intent of preserving state sovereignty, established a system in which the ELECTED representatives of a state would choose 2 men to serve as Senator. This Senator would then represent the best interest of that state in the Senate. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the represenatives of a state would select 2 men who would DO THEIR BIDDING and have in mind the best interest of the STATE representatives, who were technically representing their constituents in the state that they were elected to.

 

These Senators, in order to remain in office, would follow the advice and direction of the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, and therefore always (in theory) doing what is best for the state in which they were appointed, after all, if a representative wanted to get re-elected he would do what was best for his constiutuents, and by appointing YES MEN as Senators they would assure some sense of commonality within both houses.

 

Now with this in mind, the 17th Amendment, which claimed to end cronyism, which in some sense is what the system was supposed to support, actually took the best interest of the state and put the best interest of outside entities into play simply by ratifying the 17th amendment.

 

Here is how: Senators, no longer had to answer to elected representatives, they no longer needed to focus on issues that were important at the state level and carry them to the Federal level in respect to their states needs, they no longer needed to answer to their constituents, instead they began to receive money from outside forces (ie, other states, businesses in other states, national power players etc.) they suddenly were answering and still to this day are answering to people outside of their representative area, in some cases people from FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Why is it that Senators from Virginia now receive massive amounts of contributions from donors in other states and countries? How can this possibly be in the best interest of the constituents within a single state? Can you now see how this eventually led to the erosion of state sovereignty? Can you now see how this amendment, in a futile attempt to end state cronyism, instead led to national cronyism and the eventual erosion of state sovereignty?

 

Finally, this notion that this nation was established for only wealthy white males is nothing more than a progressive myth that has been perpetrated over the past 100 years. It lends to this idea that all of the Founders were racist, which is absurd and nonsensical, does this mean that none of them were racist? Absolutely not, but this notion is a product of Progressive revisionism and it is what leads many to think that the answer to all of our problems can eventually be solved by granting government more power. The answer is not government, government is nothing but FORCE, the answer can be found within the individual, the road to get there however is going to be very, very difficult.

 

I am enjoying this discussion and promise that I do not foster any ill feelings, continue with your thoughts. I am interested in hearing what you have to say, especially about the 17th Amendment and 35ths Compromise.

Edited August 28, 2012 by bucfan64

[Deleted Account 5,203]

First of all, I support Ron Paul with passion and conviction! I do not agree with everything the man says, but his Libertarian views are in line with mine.

 

I could, and probably should, stop reading here. Too often, I come across "Paulyannas" who refuse to recognize anything between the stances of "you love freedom, liberty, [insert patriotic buzzword here], etc." and "YOU WANT TO DESTROY THIS NATION AND WE MUST STOP YOU." In my experience, that's a majority of his supporters. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's continue.

 

How do we revert back? It would require cultural change, the change that so many today promote is a top down "Change." I believe that individual must first become the "change that they want to see in the world," (Ghandi), this isn't a fantasy, this is reality. If people embrace the true spirit of individualism, they will adjust and reformulate the way that they live their life, they will strive to hold themselves accountable and strive to hold themselves to a higher standard, (think Christian values and morality) become more "Christ like."

 

But here's the thing, though. Today's society fosters a herd (not group) mentality. I'd even go so far as to say that the media has an agenda in promoting the herd mentality. Just look at how Americans consume news (not study/examine, but consume). It's a numbers game: if showing more sex and gore gets the Nielsen rating from 2.2 to 2.3, you know what's going to be done. If bringing on a hot chick who talks at a 7th-grade level gets advertising dollars, that'll be what's done.

 

Americans have taken the herd mentality hook, line, and sinker. My parents' generation enabled it. My generation embraced it. We hear so many people talk about the individual, yet so many of the same people will be the ones who get nervous twitches waiting for [insert Music Contest Show] to end so they can vote "with the rest of America". Those same people will watch the same sitcoms and dramas as everyone else. Those same people will listen to nothing but MSNBC/CNN/FOX/Limbaugh-Hannity and then shove those views into our minds through Facebook. Those people are PROGRAMMED, almost devoid of rational thought, to do whatever their clique does. (Edit: This does not intend to say "If you watch American Idol, you're a mindless sheep"...but a whole bunch of mindless sheep do "because it's cool". I mean to say that it's concerning when more people know the Griffins of Family Guy than can name one Supreme Court Justice.)

 

Most people will buy whatever is spoon-fed to them. And it happens on both sides. You have the thoughtless right who will claim "That OBAMA'S just a socialist pig from Kenya who wants to destroy the country". You have the thoughless left who will claim "Republicans HATE women and HATE minorities and HATE the truth and we're the only group who knows ANYTHING."

 

It's not so simple as to say "oh, we just need a cultural change". You might as well be saying "no biggie, just change it, dawg". It's nowhere near that easy. You're going to need a movement that popular culture will not only not foster, but will actively seek to destroy it. Can it happen? I still think so, but it's going to require people en masse getting their heads out of their duodena. In a country that is predominantly Christian, I think Christians should light the way. However, we're talking about a religion whose followers haven't been active in such a way thus far. It will be no means be easy.

 

If I thought that this was a fantasy, I would be ignoring the fact that it happened once, with the American Revolution, Enlightenment, and with the Great Awakening. If it happened then, it can happen now, even if it is 225+ years later.

 

You say "it happened" once, then list three events (not even in chronological order)? What's even more bizarre, the "Age of Enlightenment" and the four "Great Awakenings" were the antitheses of one another!

 

Aside from that, there is so much different in the world today that makes it incompatible with 1650-onward. We have telephones, television, mass media, and internet, all of which fosters the herd mentality I mentioned above. The United States of America has had its whole history since those times. The differences are endless, and it makes the times virtually incomparable.

 

Second, I ask the question, "Why is America today, so dissimilar from the America of our Founders?" Answer: because we deviated away from those moral truths and principles, I believe in absolutes, and I contend that many of those ideas can still stand the test of time! Hard work is not old fashioned, doing what is right is not old fashioned, being responsible for your actions and being accountable is not old fashioned, it was truth then, it is still truth today!

 

This is one of the "Paulyanna" traits. "Here's this vague, nebulous, impossible-to-answer-in-one-paragraph question, and here is the short, definite answer filled with loads of subjective interpretation, and it is absolutely correct." Believing in multiple absolutes is one way to be absolutely WRONG. I believe in 1 absolute and 1 absolute only, and as a Christian, you should be able to guess what that is.

 

Not to say that your "absolutes" aren't good axioms MOST of the time. But they aren't absolutes. Not by a long shot.

 

Reverting back, doesn't mean accepting past mistakes and repeating them, that is why we have the Contsitution, that is why we have amendments, we can view them and learn from past mistakes.

 

Actually, repeating a past mistake is implicit in the definition of "reverting": http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revert.

 

*****You speak of the 3/5ths Compromise as if it was a bad idea. Nothing could be further from the truth! The 3/5ths Compromise did not set out to establish a black man as 3/5ths of a man, instead it was a measure implemented by our Founders to hopefully eradicate slavery from our midst. They knew that Southerners would never agree to count a Black man as a full fledged member of society but by ONLY counting 3/5ths of the black population when it came census time, it would hopefully weaken the strength of Southern states and eventually discourage them from clinging to the institute of slavery! If they would let go of the institute of slavery and grant freedom they could then count 100% of the black population when it came time for Representation!*****

 

The Three-Fifths Compromise was intended EXACTLY to establish a black man as 3/5 of a man. The issue wasn't nearly as noble and devious as "let us destroy the institution of slavery!". The issue was one of whether to count slaves as property (which was specifically what the North wanted-which would increase tax burdens among southern states) or to count them as people (which was specifically what the South wanted-which would shift the balance of power in Congress and the Electoral College to the South). The compromise: do not count them as property, and do not count them as a full person.

 

Ending slavery? Try a few decades later.

 

**** You also speak of Senatorial appointments as if it was a bad idea. You are assuming that the 17th Amendment was a good thing. Allow me to explain how it is one of the very things that has gradually led to the erosion of state sovereignty in this nation, which by the way has led to an out of control Federal Government.

 

The Founders, with full intent of preserving state sovereignty, established a system in which the ELECTED representatives of a state would choose 2 men to serve as Senator. This Senator would then represent the best interest of that state in the Senate. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the represenatives of a state would select 2 men who would DO THE BIDDING and have in mind the best interest of the STATE representatives, who were technically representing their constituents in the state that they were elected to.

 

These Senators, in order to remain in office, would follow the advice and direction of the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, and therefore always (in theory) doing what is best for the state, after all, if a representative wanted to get re-elected he would do what was best for his constiutuents.

 

Now with this in mind, the 17th Amendment, which claimed to end cronyism, which in some sense is exactly what the system was supposed to support, actually took the best interest of the state and put the best interest of outside entities into play simply by ratifying the 17th amendment.

 

Here is how: Senators, no longer had to answer to elected representatives, they no longer needed to focus on issues that were important at the state level and carry them to the Federal level in respect to their states needs, they no longer needed to answer to their constituents, instead they began to receive money from outside forces (ie, other states, businesses in other states, national power players etc.) they suddenly were answering and still to this day are answering to people outside of their representative area. Why is it that Senators from Virginia now receive massive amounts of contributions from donors in other states? Can you now see how this eventually led to the erosion of state sovereignty? Can you now see how this amendment, in a futile attempt to end state cronyism, instead led to national cronyism and the eventual erosion of state sovereignty?

 

Finally, this notion that this nation was established for only wealthy white males is nothing more than a progressive myth that has been perpetrated over the past 100 years. It lends to this idea that all of the Founders were racist, which is absurd and nonsensical, does this mean that none of them were racist? Absolutely not, but this notion is a product of Progressive revisionism and it is what leads many to think that the answer to all of our problems can eventually be solved by granting government more power. The answer is not government, government is nothing but FORCE, the answer can be found within the individual, the road to get there however is going to be very, very difficult.

 

The Seventeenth Amendment was birthed because of the extreme amount of cronyism, deadlocks, and corruption present in the Senate during the late 19th/early 20th centuries. It wasn't exactly the first time the Amendment was proposed: similar amendments were tables in 1828, 1829, and 1855.

 

The Gilded Age really helped spur this on. State legislatures filled the seats, and if you think that state legislatures in the 1800s were pure and immune to corruption, think again. You could have people like Boss Tweed pretty much hand-picking two senators with the power he yielded. In times where there were fewer than 50 states, this is not insignificant.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This has the potential to be a very fruitful discussion. I, too, harbor no ill will. I may not be able to respond until tomorrow, but be blessed in the meantime.

Edited August 28, 2012 by UVAObserver

[BigBlueAlum 12]

This is all well, good, and patriotic, but how do you propose that we "revert back to principles established by our Founding Fathers" in an America that could not be more dissimilar from what the founding fathers experienced?

 

I ask this, because what you say here is not too dissimilar from what the Ron Paul nutjobs will say, not realizing that for every change we make to the system, there are significant consequences that will result, some positive, as many negative. Do we want to revert back to isolationism? Sure...but realize that our "isolationism" allowed both World Wars to drag on for 2-3 years longer than they should've. Do we want to revert back to an industrial and agrarian economy? Sure...but realize that in order to do that, you're going to have to do some heavy-duty revision to Title 29 of the U.S. Code, which will be fought tooth-and-nail by many of the labor unions that the changes would protect.

 

And if you're entirely literal in reverting back, do you want to include the three-fifths rule? What about the appointment, rather than election, of U.S. Senators? How about abandoning the Bill of Rights, something which came about only as a condition subsequent to getting the last few states to adopt the U.S. Constitution?

 

How about this. How about recognizing that we live in a world that's 220+ years removed from the days of which you're so fond? How about instead of saying "let's abandon this and get back to basics", let's say "we need to incorporate select principles of bygone days while ignoring others (gold standard, isolationism, etc.) that were abject failures"?

 

If I may steal your quote...

 

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deleted Account 5,203]

If I may steal your quote...

 

This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Steal away. ;)

[redtiger 1,742]

I think the real question is, when the founders wrote the constitution together how did they intend it to be implemented.

 

I believe the Founders wrote the Constitution as a starting point and they purposely avoided certain issues, leaving them for future generations to work out(slavery being the most obvious). I would argue that many of those original ideas have proved to be ineffective.

 

I feel that you are puting the founders up on a pedestal and making them out to be more than they were. Im not saying that they werent great men, they were, but they were also very flawed and far from perfect. Many of them were racist and many of the ones who werent racist lacked the backbone to make any move against slavery when given the opportunity for fear of how they would be viewed by their friends and society. They also had the opportunity to grant women equal rights and did not, leaving both issues for future generations to settle.

 

"Hard work is not old fashioned, doing what is right is not old fashioned, being responsible for your actions and being accountable is not old fashioned, it was truth then, it is still truth today!" True and I dont think anyone here would argue that that statement is wrong in any way.

 

I would argue for a larger government where the people are better educated and more involved in the government.

 

You would argue for a smaller government. Would you do away with, Social Security, Federal Financial Aid, Medicare or Medicaid in an effort to reduce government? Ron Paul would.

[deuceswild 15]

Wait...what just happened?

 

This brought a tear to my eye. This is EXACTLY how I felt when the Ents decided to help save the Hobbits and overthrow Saruman. You know they could've just sat idly by and been big do-nothing trees, but instead they stepped in and gave it what they had.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

This brought a tear to my eye. This is EXACTLY how I felt when the Ents decided to help save the Hobbits and overthrow Saruman. You know they could've just sat idly by and been big do-nothing trees, but instead they stepped in and gave it what they had.

 

Your post : epic ratio leads this site.

[deuceswild 15]

Your post : epic ratio leads this site.

 

As long as you continue to lead the team in logic, we'll continue to be the best this site has to offer aside from GMan's exorbitant picture of a T-shirt in his signature.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

This brought a tear to my eye. This is EXACTLY how I felt when the Ents decided to help save the Hobbits and overthrow Saruman. You know they could've just sat idly by and been big do-nothing trees, but instead they stepped in and gave it what they had.

 

It's times like this that I wish I would have watched the LOTR series :(