• 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!

What has Damaged America the Most?

What has Damaged America the Most?


  • Total voters
    85
No, it doesnt. In fact, it doesnt address the issue in any way.

Let me clarify, then.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it causes every other. War is the cause of armies; from these are caused debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. War, too, causes the discretionary power of the Executive to be extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments to be multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, to be added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism causes the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."


Goobieman said:
Show that "war is always evil".

It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost. It's inherently inimical to democratic society for the reasons Madison pointed out. The royal executive that "conservatives" worship in wartime is the same one that extends government power through taxes and bureaucracy.


Goobieman said:
This doesnt do anything to negate what I said.

It directly negates it, unless you think fascism is compatible with liberty.
 
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it causes every other.
This discussed the the threat pulic liberty, not 'damage" to the coutnry.
It also does not exclude or preclude other causes to that threat. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done. To wit:
War is the cause of armies; from these are caused debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few
What -else- might cause taxes and debts, and might cause them to a greater degree?
Surely, you need no prompt to answer this, as there are numerous examples.

War, too, causes the discretionary power of the Executive to be extended...
And that of those other causes of debts and taxes? These are outside of any discretion, immune from question and oversight. The power there is far more insidious. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.

So, you have yet to support the idea that war is -the- cause of all the 'damage' done to the country.

It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost.
This is your defintion of evil? Remarkable, overtly secular - and impossibly self-serving.

Aside from your questionable standard...
War, while certainly ofetn quite destructive, often creates opportunity for production, and is often productive in and of itself. To argue that war cannot have a productive component -- that is, a benefit to society -- simply denies the truth of history.

It's inherently inimical to democratic society for the reasons Madison pointed out.
Not always.

It directly negates it...
Obviusly not.
 
This discussed the the threat pulic liberty, not 'damage" to the coutnry.

Liberty is our foundation. What harms liberty harms the country.

Goobieman said:
It also does not exclude or preclude other causes to that threat. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.

To wit:

What -else- might cause taxes and debts, and might cause them to a greater degree?
Surely, you need no prompt to answer this, as there are numerous examples.


And that of those other causes of debts and taxes? These are outside of any discretion, immune from question and oversight. The power there is far more insidious. As such, war cannot be singled out, as you have done.

So, you have yet to support the idea that war is -the- cause of all the 'damage' done to the country.

Well, that's a different point, isn't it? If you disagree with Madison and the other Founders who thought war was harmful, you should just say so.

Yes, there are other causes, but if you trace them back far enough you will almost always find war at the root. What was the purpose of the first large-scale federal welfare program? The first income tax? How did Roosevelt increase his power and create legitimacy for the New Deal? How do Bush and Obama claim the dictatorial right to detain American citizens without trial? It all goes back to war and the desperation it fosters.


Goobieman said:
This is your defintion of evil? Remarkable, overtly secular - and impossibly self-serving.

I simply mean that it's an evil, not the whole definition of evil and certainly not to the exclusion of religious definitions.

Goobieman said:
Aside from your questionable standard...
War, while certainly ofetn quite destructive, often creates opportunity for production, and is often productive in and of itself. To argue that war cannot have a productive component -- that is, a benefit to society -- simply denies the truth of history.

Congratulations on out-Keynesing the Keynesians. A conservative advocating the Broken Window Fallacy is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. War makes socialists of us all.


Goobieman said:
Not always.

And why is that?

Goobieman said:
Obviusly not.

The assertion that a society is tending to fascism doesn't negate the assertion that it's preserving its freedom? Okay, have it your way. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
 
Liberty is our foundation. What harms liberty harms the country.
Yes... but that's not the ONLY harm our country can experience, and war is not the ONLY way liberty can be harmed.

Well, that's a different point, isn't it?
Which IS the point. You're arguing that war is the be-all end-all cause of harm to this country, based on its affect on taxes/debt and the dangerouns consolidation of power. There are other things that create these conditions, to an extent greater than war, and as such, illustrate that war is not that be-all end-all cause of harm. This, alone, negates your position.

Yes, there are other causes, but if you trace them back far enough you will almost always find war at the root.
The welfare state does not have war at its root. This isnt even a good try on your part.

I simply mean that it's an evil, not the whole definition of evil and certainly not to the exclusion of religious definitions.
You said that "war is always evil", and then backed that statement with the idea that "It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost". This is flalse; significant progress in any number of useful, even essential, areas stem from war, bith directly and indirectly. This illustrates a "productive" side of war, as war prodiced these things, and thus negates your argument that war is "always evil".

Congratulations on out-Keynesing the Keynesians.
This has absolutely no relationship to what I said. Nice try, tho.

And why is that?
In many cases - examples of which you should be very familiar with - democtratic processes were not possible until the result of war bought the conditions that allowed such a society to exist.

The assertion that a society is tending to fascism doesn't negate the assertion that it's preserving its freedom?
It MIGHT... if it were true. Its not true.
 
Yes... but that's not the ONLY harm our country can experience, and war is not the ONLY way liberty can be harmed.


Which IS the point. You're arguing that war is the be-all end-all cause of harm to this country, based on its affect on taxes/debt and the dangerouns consolidation of power. There are other things that create these conditions, to an extent greater than war, and as such, illustrate that war is not that be-all end-all cause of harm. This, alone, negates your position.


The welfare state does not have war at its root. This isnt even a good try on your part.


You said that "war is always evil", and then backed that statement with the idea that "It's destructive rather than productive, and doubly so because of its large opportunity cost". This is flalse; significant progress in any number of useful, even essential, areas stem from war, bith directly and indirectly. This illustrates a "productive" side of war, as war prodiced these things, and thus negates your argument that war is "always evil".


This has absolutely no relationship to what I said. Nice try, tho.


In many cases - examples of which you should be very familiar with - democtratic processes were not possible until the result of war bought the conditions that allowed such a society to exist.


It MIGHT... if it were true. Its not true.

You're wasting my time and failing to counter the substance of my points. You'll have to carry on without me, sorry.
 
Strange conservative-tea party reasoning.

Are you kidding? When a bank actively loans money to corporations because they are "too big to fail," how can that be construed as something other than corporatism?
 
"What has Damaged America the Most?"

Incorrect assignment of responsibility.

Edit: As defined by me, of course.
 
Last edited:
Take your first definition of fascism and add : "and involves the merger of government and corporate power".

The bank bailout IS fascism, Obama's handling of the auto industry is fascism, letting insurance companies WRITE the health care bill is fascism, etc

Also, JUST BECAUSE Obama was elected and has the 'velvet glove' doesn't make him ANY less of a dictator... rather then the executor he's supposed to be... and when they kick him out in 2012 or 2016, then a new guy will come in and act as dictator...so, the dictatorship is in the OFFICE of the presidency, rather then the puppet sitting in the presidential chair.

Learn how the US system works before you make outlandish statements.

Obama'a only power is military, defense, veto, pardons, bill signing, and the bully pulpit.

ricksfolly
 
Learn how the US system works before you make outlandish statements.

Obama'a only power is military, defense, veto, pardons, bill signing, and the bully pulpit.

ricksfolly

Oh come on ricksfolly, you forgot executive orders. :)
 
Oh come on ricksfolly, you forgot executive orders. :)

nominating judges is the single greatest and most lasting power a president has. Look how much FDR F'd up the USA with his lapdog judges who ignored the tenth amendment and interpreted the "commerce clause" as a general grant of complete power to congress.
 
Given that you have given up defending your argument frim direct, valid criticism, you might as well...

Call me stubborn, but I'm holding out hope that some valid criticism may yet appear.
 
I've thought about this some more and have come the conclusion that Americans have damaged the U.S. the most.

We have moved away from pluralism and have instead embraced majoritarianism.
The democratization of the electoral process, is most likely the culprit (aka, the people).
 
Strange conservative-tea party reasoning.

Care to elaborate on that?? I was using the dictionary definition of fascism, though yours had a shorter definition.

Learn how the US system works before you make outlandish statements.

Obama'a only power is military, defense, veto, pardons, bill signing, and the bully pulpit.

ricksfolly

Well, if you're assuming that the presidency abides by the constitution then yes, that's the presidents powers are. I'm afraid that this is no longer the case, at the least since Bush but probably more like since JFK, this is a trend that's been accelerating.

So, well, I hate to be the one to break it to you but America ain't the same place it used to be... and I don't mean because almost all of his czars and appointees are devout socialists / communists... but because Obama's (with bipartisan bills as mentioned earlier) is engaging in policy making that is almost what could be called treasonous by the constitutional definition of the word. I know that's not possible because he was a constitutional lawyer, but it seems that he's the type of lawyer that would tell you that you have to give up the kids, the house, the dog and the car, but you won the alimony, the mortgage, and the debts.... and get mad at you when you tell him he screwed you over.

Really, if you want I could link to you all the bills that have passed since Obama took office, but really... the change being delivered is vastly different from what the people thought he was promising.

I've thought about this some more and have come the conclusion that Americans have damaged the U.S. the most.

We have moved away from pluralism and have instead embraced majoritarianism.
The democratization of the electoral process, is most likely the culprit (aka, the people).

The extent to which the people can be blamed is for re-electing these same corrupt, bought-off, carreer politicians, who go into politics 'wealthy' but retire is multi-millionaires and even billionaires.

The problem is that those politicians are no longer writing the bills the pass, they are no longer reading the bills they are supposed to write, and so they are passing legislation without doing their job. If that's not corruption, I don't know what is... and then it goes up a notch, senators were getting 1000:1 phone calls against the bailout and it got passed anyway... and you wonder why people have so little faith in politics... but this is a process that's been snowballing for a very long time.

I will agree with you that the people through the lack of caring have allowed the problem to grow, but if those in power weren't corrupt then it wouldn't matter either way.
 
I've thought about this some more and have come the conclusion that Americans have damaged the U.S. the most.

We have moved away from pluralism and have instead embraced majoritarianism.
The democratization of the electoral process, is most likely the culprit (aka, the people).

You're right, the fault is the people, but not for the reasons you suggested. They're too afraid to do their usual buying, and the media keeps them afraid by only printing bad news. And those rare occasions when they do print good news, they always undermine it with "it could be better."

ricksfolly
 
You're right, the fault is the people, but not for the reasons you suggested. They're too afraid to do their usual buying, and the media keeps them afraid by only printing bad news. And those rare occasions when they do print good news, they always undermine it with "it could be better."

ricksfolly

This is NOT a simple matter of 'low confidence'... the problem is systemic. Everything about the economy is simply wrong. America is hemorrhaging it's wealth and other countries are more then willing to lap up the wealth. People are doing their best to save themselves before this system of corruption collapses under it's own weight.
 
None of the above.

What has Damaged America the Most?
The midnset that you are entitled to a certain standard of living, and that if you haven't been able to provide that standard for yourself, it's someone else's fault.

I agree, but let me add a bit to it....there is also the mindset that it is always the individuals fault.
I know too many people who have brought their situation upon themselves, but I also know some that don't care about their fellow citizens one damn bit. And those people often go to church on a regular basis....
 
This is NOT a simple matter of 'low confidence'... the problem is systemic. Everything about the economy is simply wrong. America is hemorrhaging it's wealth and other countries are more then willing to lap up the wealth. People are doing their best to save themselves before this system of corruption collapses under it's own weight.

I only go by what I know now. Target, Walmart, and the all the other parking lots are full and traffic is heavier than it was last year. Those are the real signs, not predictions of what is happening undercover or tomorrow, six months from now or even next year. As I said, the problem is the overreacting media and gullible scaredy cats.

ricksfolly
 
I only go by what I know now. Target, Walmart, and the all the other parking lots are full and traffic is heavier than it was last year. Those are the real signs, not predictions of what is happening undercover or tomorrow, six months from now or even next year. As I said, the problem is the overreacting media and gullible scaredy cats.

ricksfolly

Those are signs of the race to the bottom.

This is a complicated and multi-faceted issue... that almost all of walmarts income goes to china illustrates a part of that problem.

But you could include the creation of money... see, you're not having to really PAY that last I heard 28 trillion dollars at this point... because they just print 28 trillion dollars... if all the currency combined was 28 trillion dollars, then the dollar in your pocket buys 50 cents worth of stuff... maybe not immediately, but in simple terms, if there's not 28 trillion worth of production more to offset this printing of money... but that's not really realistic. To illustrate the point, a gold coin marked '10 dollars' is procured for much closer to 250$.
 
I only go by what I know now. Target, Walmart, and the all the other parking lots are full and traffic is heavier than it was last year. Those are the real signs, not predictions of what is happening undercover or tomorrow, six months from now or even next year. As I said, the problem is the overreacting media and gullible scaredy cats.

ricksfolly

Thrift stores and dollar stores are doing a booming business as well, but I doubt that is a sign that things are getting better....
 
Back
Top Bottom