• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When was America most free as a nation?

When was America most free as a nation?

  • Between the end of the Revolutionary War and the start of the Civil War?

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of World War One?

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Between the end of WWI and the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Today, including the time after passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    Votes: 37 66.1%
  • Total voters
    56
ThePlayDrive said:
LOL at the white men who chose a time period other than now. Clueless.
Click to expand...

Eh, in the 1960s or 1970s I would have been locked up in an institution by the time I turned 5 or 6 as soon as they found me out. Heck, we received pressure in the early 90s to do that to one of our family members when he was 4-5.

But you know, I'm supposed to clamor for the days of yore, because "liberty" and all that jazz existed before minorities showed up and were in a better situation.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
The inalienable right to be who and what I am with impunity is what the Founders risked all they owned and their very lives to give me and sealed it with an amazing document called the Constitution. For somebody else to presume to dictate who and what I must be and how I am required to live my life for 'the greater good' is the precise kind of totalitarianism the Founders fought a costly and bloody war to ensure I would never have to be subject to that.

Who decides who is worthy to judge how I must live my life? Who is noble enough or pure enough not to succumb to temptation to use such power for their own benefit? And once they do, who is empowered to tell them to cease and desist and make it stick?

We either are a people who govern ourselves as the Founders intended or we give up all our freedom to a government that dictates what liberties and privileges we are allowed to have and can just as quickly take away those same liberties and privileges.
Click to expand...

That's what you're not getting - nobody's judging how you must live your life. You can live as you will...but you must live your life with consideration for those around you.

So you want to use all the water you can. And all of a sudden everybody else in the city decides they can, too. All of a sudden there's not enough water to go around...and everybody suffers...including you.

So is it better to allow you and everyone else to be as wasteful as you want to be with resources if we know that this could result in problems for the entire city down the road? Or is it better to put limits on everyone's use - to allow enough use of those resources to live comfortably, but not to be wasteful with them - to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?
 
TurtleDude said:
Depends on how you define freedom. If you are a leftist and freedom means an affirmative duty on others to give you something, then perhaps today. If it means being able to act on your own without government interference-probably 120 years ago
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I chose option #2, from the end of the civil war until WWI, because we are talking about the nation as a whole, aka on a federal level. Once slavery was abolished, everyone in America had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A black person's vote was finally counted the same as a white persons vote, and just after WWI women received nationally, the right to vote.

Our freedoms have been disappearing little by little ever since and things are worse today than they have ever been.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point, in case you missed it, was that the poverty rate remains stable despite spending ever more. You asserted that, at some point, poverty program spending would level off (or decline) as the poverty rate stabilized. The poverty rate has been stable, with the possible exception of recession periods, yet poverty program spending continues to rise.
Click to expand...

No, I got your point - of course I did! But I was also pointing out that there's many other factors involved other than just throwing money at the poor. For instance, in the beginning of LBJ's Great Society, there was no advanced care for poor children who become sick. There was no advanced care for disabled children - and our understanding of mental problems was primitive compared to what we know now. For instance, back in 2005 I calculated how much it was costing the taxpayer to care for my two medically-fragile Foster children - it was a quarter million dollars per child, per year...and that was not counting medications and medical treatment. Would they have received the same level of care in LBJ's time? Of course not...but the cost of these children - and all disabled or mentally-challenged children - are part of what adds up to that huge increase in the cost that your charts show.

And then there's the significant rise in ADD/ADHD cases - that's caught our whole society off guard, and we still don't know for sure what's driving the rise (which isn't simply a matter of more accurate diagnoses). There's the rise in autism cases - and such kids are a real challenge - one of my Foster children was a low-functioning autistic teenager with a mental age of about 12-18 months. He's in adult assisted-living now...and I honestly miss him, as loudly as he would scream when he wanted attention.

Another factor going into that skyrocketing cost on your charts is our aging population - the adults who can no longer care for themselves, and who do not have family to care for them. Guess who's paying for their care? The taxpayers.

You see, it isn't just a matter of giving money to poor people who don't want to work - yes, there are some who will game the system, but most don't - most hate being on the dole and would much rather have a decent job. It's more of a matter of providing care to those who cannot care for themselves, to a degree that we've never done before.

THAT is one of the major drivers in the skyrocketing cost of our social safety net.
 
Grim17 said:
You took the words right out of my mouth.

I chose option #2, from the end of the civil war until WWI, because we are talking about the nation as a whole, aka on a federal level. Once slavery was abolished, everyone in America had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A black person's vote was finally counted the same as a white persons vote, and just after WWI women received nationally, the right to vote.

Our freedoms have been disappearing little by little ever since and things are worse today than they have ever been.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has zero clue about what happened during the Jim Crow years...including how blacks were so often prevented from voting. And I notice you chose the option that said America was most free before women got the right to vote.

I suggest you go read your American history.
 
Grim17 said:
Once slavery was abolished, everyone in America had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Not really. For African Americans, for instance, this was the time period in which lynchings were an epidemic. Lynchings which had the cooperation of government authorities, and a government which could not even pass an anti-lynching law. This was also a time period in which states across the country were starting to pass mandatory sterilization laws. You can keep extrapolating from there.

A black person's vote was finally counted the same as a white persons vote,
Click to expand...

If they were allowed to get to the polls and vote, that is.

and just after WWI women received nationally, the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Which occurred after your time period.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Dude - Missouri's not part of the Deep South. Missouri was just a border state in the Civil War. You've got a LOT to learn about the South if you think Missouri's really part of the Deep South.
Click to expand...

Dude...Puget Sound, Washington is not part of the Deep South. I have NOTHING to learn, because I know where I'm from and it AIN'T Missouri originally. I root for the Arkansas Razorbacks and I am a NATIVE of the great state of ARKANSAS. Living in Missouri is my equivalent to YOU living in the state of Washington. But apparently you have trouble comprehending small facts such as that.........dude.

And your claims about how terrible whites have it, and how racist blacks are, are simply evidence that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're just another (probably white and older) conservative who's ticked that his America - the one where the whites were always on top of everything - has been taken away from him.

You can have the last word - I won't reply. Good day, sir.
Click to expand...

I've got a link for you....dude. Which should piss you off but royally. But DUDE....it's true. Have a nice read on what is REALLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA sir.

WHITE GIRL BLEED A LOT
 
HogWash said:
Dude...Puget Sound, Washington is not part of the Deep South. I have NOTHING to learn, because I know where I'm from and it AIN'T Missouri originally. I root for the Arkansas Razorbacks and I am a NATIVE of the great state of ARKANSAS. Living in Missouri is my equivalent to YOU living in the state of Washington. But apparently you have trouble comprehending small facts such as that.........dude.



I've got a link for you....dude. Which should piss you off but royally. But DUDE....it's true. Have a nice read on what is REALLY HAPPENING IN AMERICA sir.

WHITE GIRL BLEED A LOT
Click to expand...

Guy, I grew up in the MS Delta. My family - brother, mother, grandpa, grandma, and her parents and their parents before them - are all buried there in a cemetery by a small Southern Baptist church in Sunflower County. I know the Deep South VERY well, and my roots there run deeper than most. I will be the first in my direct family line since the Civil War to be buried outside of that little cemetery.

Arkansas does qualify as Deep South...but the MS Delta is the very deepest of the Deep South. Nowhere else comes close.

I miss the Delta - I miss the land, the dirt, even the doggone gumbo (and I'm not referring to the kind you eat). I miss the weather, the sun, the heat, the big sky, the sounds of the birds, the smell of the air. I miss the freedom to drive like a bat out of hell if I really wanted to, the ability to walk anywhere around there even into the bayous and know what all the plants are. I miss the food most of all - you can't get good Southern food out here for love or money. I don't even mind the snakes there in the Delta. I do mind the skeeters...but that's part of life in the Delta.

But I'll never live there again - I've been back so many times since I left (the last time being this past February for the death of my brother)...and every time I go there I see more and more of the racism (much of it in my own family - and yes, I was raised racist, though we never thought of it that way)...and that's just the way it is there. If one is white and raised there, chances are almost certain that one going to be racist at least to some degree...but that one will swear up and down that he's not racist - he really believes he's not. He'll risk his life without a second thought to help a black man in danger, and he'll gladly share of the bounty of his garden with blacks who have less...but as soon as those blacks are out of earshot, out come all the old prejudices, all the old n-word jokes, all the old assumptions...and so the young are carefully taught, like the song goes in "South Pacific".

Very, very few people know the South like I do, guy...because very few have made the journey I have, from being a racist - while honestly swearing up and down that I never was one - to seeing how deep the racism there goes.

So spare me your white victimhood, guy, because most whites - not all, but most - in the Deep South are still doing their level best to keep their positions of power and supremacy in society there...the most obvious examples being the "segregation academies" that still exist...particularly in Mississippi. By the way, you do know that Mississippi's ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery only became official last year, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Says the guy who has zero clue about what happened during the Jim Crow years...including how blacks were so often prevented from voting. .
Click to expand...


The question was, "when was America most free as a nation". Jim Crow laws were not the law of the land... Those were put into place on a state and regional level, they weren't passed by congress and signed by the president.

Don't assume to know the knowlege I possess, just because my opinion doesn't meet with your approval.



And I notice you chose the option that said America was most free before women got the right to vote.

I suggest you go read your American history
Click to expand...

Why do you think I mentioned a woman's right to vote in the first place? It was the one thing outside of the dateline I chose, that I wanted to be included with American freedoms. FFS

As for your suggestion, I often read things related to American history and consider my knowledge on the subject well above the average... Now since we're handing out advice, here's a suggestion I have for you.

When you use a false premise in order to attack or criticize people of opposing political beliefs, and you are called out for doing so, your best option (the most honest and most correct) is to either come clean, apologize and/or retract the post... as opposed to trying to legitimize or justify that false premise, by posting links to websites that not only prove that your premise was in fact false, but that you knew it was false when you posted it. What that does is transform your post from being nothing more than a simple mistake, into a calculated, purposeful lie on your part. I'm sure you are aware of the post I'm referring to, so there's no need for me to go into more detail.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
That's what you're not getting - nobody's judging how you must live your life. You can live as you will...but you must live your life with consideration for those around you.

So you want to use all the water you can. And all of a sudden everybody else in the city decides they can, too. All of a sudden there's not enough water to go around...and everybody suffers...including you.

So is it better to allow you and everyone else to be as wasteful as you want to be with resources if we know that this could result in problems for the entire city down the road? Or is it better to put limits on everyone's use - to allow enough use of those resources to live comfortably, but not to be wasteful with them - to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?
Click to expand...

Our local water department monitors everybody's usage. Those who exceed a 'normal' amount will be charged a premium. Those who are wasting water, i.e. allowing it to run in the street, are subject to a fine. The Federal government can indeed regulate water that must be shared by multiple states such as lakes or rivers that cross state lines or coastal waters or shared major aquifers, but that is between the federal government and state governments. The Federal government should have no interest of any kind in my personal water usage.
 
Grim17 said:
The question was, "when was America most free as a nation". Jim Crow laws were not the law of the land... Those were put into place on a state and regional level, they weren't passed by congress and signed by the president.

Don't assume to know the knowlege I possess, just because my opinion doesn't meet with your approval.





Why do you think I mentioned a woman's right to vote in the first place? It was the one thing outside of the dateline I chose, that I wanted to be included with American freedoms. FFS

As for your suggestion, I often read things related to American history and consider my knowledge on the subject well above the average... Now since we're handing out advice, here's a suggestion I have for you.

When you use a false premise in order to attack or criticize people of opposing political beliefs, and you are called out for doing so, your best option (the most honest and most correct) is to either come clean, apologize and/or retract the post... as opposed to trying to legitimize or justify that false premise, by posting links to websites that not only prove that your premise was in fact false, but that you knew it was false when you posted it. What that does is transform your post from being nothing more than a simple mistake, into a calculated, purposeful lie on your part. I'm sure you are aware of the post I'm referring to, so there's no need for me to go into more detail.
Click to expand...

So...if a few million Americans don't have the same rights you do, aren't allowed to go the same places you're allowed to go...to you, as long as YOU are free (even if those millions aren't), that's all the freedom that really concerns you?
 
Grim17 said:
The question was, "when was America most free as a nation". Jim Crow laws were not the law of the land... Those were put into place on a state and regional level, they weren't passed by congress and signed by the president.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting Plessy as a rather obvious example of "law of the land."
 
AlbqOwl said:
Our local water department monitors everybody's usage. Those who exceed a 'normal' amount will be charged a premium. Those who are wasting water, i.e. allowing it to run in the street, are subject to a fine. The Federal government can indeed regulate water that must be shared by multiple states such as lakes or rivers that cross state lines or coastal waters or shared major aquifers, but that is between the federal government and state governments. The Federal government should have no interest of any kind in my personal water usage.
Click to expand...

You really didn't get my point, did you? Even with the regulation of water by the federal and state governments, there's only so much water to go around.

If you and everyone else are allowed to use all the water you want, even if much of it is wasted, then when the water runs low because of everyone wasting so much water, everyone - including you - suffers.

So you believe that you and everyone else should be able to waste all the water you want just because you can, even if it leads to water rationing in the future? Or do you believe that a modicum of regulation would be more prudent if it would prevent that water rationing from ever happening?

Please answer the question.
 
Grim17 said:
Which is why I included it in my post...
Click to expand...

Which would kind of work against your overall answer.

And the rest of it?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...if a few million Americans don't have the same rights you do, aren't allowed to go the same places you're allowed to go...to you, as long as YOU are free (even if those millions aren't), that's all the freedom that really concerns you?
Click to expand...

You are talking about the nation as a whole, not on a state to state basis.

Progressively, our freedoms have been deteriorating at the hands of the federal government for a century now, as well as the level at which our right are being trampled upon.

My opinion stands.

(I see you've chosen to dodge addressing the advice I gave you)
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So spare me your white victimhood, guy, because most whites - not all, but most - in the Deep South are still doing their level best to keep their positions of power and supremacy in society there...the most obvious examples being the "segregation academies" that still exist...particularly in Mississippi. By the way, you do know that Mississippi's ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery only became official last year, don't you?
Click to expand...

Dude, dude, dude...cool it. I, of all people you run off at the mouth at, do NOT need a geography or history lesson from YOU. Nor do I need to know about the Negroes' plight AFTER being SOLD by their own tribal chieftains to the Amsterdam, Holland slave traders in the 1600s. Nor do I need to know all about your ancestors who are all buried in Mississippi. Nor do I give a flying turd.

I'm talking TODAY. NOW. And this **** is happening every day in this country.

WHITE GIRL BLEED A LOT

Did you READ IT? Of course you didn't. You don't want to know.
 
Fiddytree said:
Which would kind of work against your overall answer.

And the rest of it?
Click to expand...

I didn't choose the dates... If I could, I would have made it from the end of the civil war until 1921.

Is my position now clear?
 
Grim17 said:
I didn't choose the dates... If I could, I would have made it from the end of the civil war until 1921.

Is my position now clear?
Click to expand...

The dating is more clear, but not the substance of the answer. You claimed that, "everyone in America had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But that was not the case for many groups of people who had no such expectations with the way they were being treated by their government (be it local, county, state, district court, or federal, etc.)
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You really didn't get my point, did you? Even with the regulation of water by the federal and state governments, there's only so much water to go around.

If you and everyone else are allowed to use all the water you want, even if much of it is wasted, then when the water runs low because of everyone wasting so much water, everyone - including you - suffers.

So you believe that you and everyone else should be able to waste all the water you want just because you can, even if it leads to water rationing in the future? Or do you believe that a modicum of regulation would be more prudent if it would prevent that water rationing from ever happening?

Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

I got your point fine. You would hand over your right to use your property to some authority who would allow you to have whatever they thought you should have and you would have no say in that whatsoever. You have no problem with that in the interest of the 'common good'.

But I ask again, who is wise enough to decide who should have such power? And where is the power to deal with those given power who choose to use it in purely self serving ways for their own benefit?

I prefer to choose who will have the authority to ration water if that should become necessary and to keep that as local as possible to ensure that the people retain control of the process; i.e. that freedom be the rule. The Federal Government should have no such power.
 
Fiddytree said:
The dating is more clear, but not the substance of the answer. You claimed that, "everyone in America had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But that was not the case for many groups of people who had no such expectations with the way they were being treated by their government (be it local, county, state, district court, or federal, etc.)
Click to expand...

I'll say it again... the unequal treatment of blacks and minorities from that era was not a result of laws passed by the federal government. The discrimination and unfair treatment was on a state and regional basis, and was rooted on more of a societal level than anything. There were states where black people were largely left alone, not harrassed and allowed to pursue their happiness just as anyone else.

My point still stands... A point that not one person has yet acknowledged, that our freedoms have been deteriorating at the hands of the federal government for a century now, as well as the level at which our rights are being trampled upon.
 
Possibly the late sixties to early 70s. However, the ruling class quickly turned things around. The famous Powell memo was likely the turning point.

................
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
..............
Click to expand...

Here are some of Powell's recommendations. You can see that these things were effectively implemented in the US, which has resulted in the significant shift of the US to the right of the political spectrum that we see today.

The first thing Powell wanted to attack was the head, the intelligentsia. A very smart move.

The ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:

Staff of Scholars
The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected -- even when disagreed with.

Staff of Speakers
There also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.

Speaker's Bureau
In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.

Evaluation of Textbooks
The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.

The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.

We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.

If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.

Equal Time on the Campus
The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.

Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.

It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers. This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard -- in effect, insisted upon "equal time." University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.

The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure -- publicly and privately -- may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.

Balancing of Faculties
Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.

The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.

This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.

Graduate Schools of Business
The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.

Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.

Secondary Education
While the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction -- especially the quality control -- should be retained by the National Chamber.
....................
Click to expand...
 
AlbqOwl said:
I got your point fine. You would hand over your right to use your property to some authority who would allow you to have whatever they thought you should have and you would have no say in that whatsoever. You have no problem with that in the interest of the 'common good'.

But I ask again, who is wise enough to decide who should have such power? And where is the power to deal with those given power who choose to use it in purely self serving ways for their own benefit?

I prefer to choose who will have the authority to ration water if that should become necessary and to keep that as local as possible to ensure that the people retain control of the process; i.e. that freedom be the rule. The Federal Government should have no such power.
Click to expand...

You really don't want to answer the question, do you? You know better than to do so, huh? I asked you first, and you're trying to distract with the question. Please directly answer the question, and then I will answer yours.
 
Grim17 said:
I'll say it again... the unequal treatment of blacks and minorities from that era was not a result of laws passed by the federal government. The discrimination and unfair treatment was on a state and regional basis, and was rooted on more of a societal level than anything. There were states where black people were largely left alone, not harrassed and allowed to pursue their happiness just as anyone else.
Click to expand...

But what happens when the federal government does little to nothing to either speak out against the laws of the states, nor upholds the expectations of an American citizen to be granted Constitutional protections, or in fact takes the action to decree that those laws are in fact Constitutional (thus giving permission to the states to adopt similar laws, because it is now sanctioned) At the least, the federal government tolerated the abuses of the system against American citizens, and at worst, was an instigator in subjecting American citizens to a life which did not believe they had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom