• 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!

13 arrested, 4 injured at Portland right wing rally: Police

bluesmoke said:
That “could” would be nothing more than the plausible impossible. Like a mouse that could be a steamboat captain. The US Constitution is not based on Judeo- Christian or any other religious dogma. You’re not defining religion, you’re excluding religion. The Founders intentionally stayed away from basing any part of the Constitution on any religious teachings. It is a tad bit beyond the hypothetical and a bit into the imagination. That would never happen by itself, as you present it. There would be a great deal more upheaval than just that for it to happen. Like only white people can be a citizen. But others can be resident workers. Hey, maybe we're on to something here.
Click to expand...

My point was that it wasn't necessary to SPECIFICALLY "infringe" on "constitutional rights" in order to be able to take completely legal steps that had the effect of rendering them moot.

PS - Stick ""In the United States of America, the term "religion" shall, for all matters of legal interpretation, refer solely to those organized groups which claim to be following the teachings set out in either "The Torah" or "The Bible"." down into sub-paragraph 246 on Page 947 of a 2,185 page piece of "must pass" legislation (where voting against the legislation is likely to lower a Senator's or Representative's chance of getting re-elected [and where the Senators and Representatives have about three days to actually attempt to read the whole thing]) and the job is done before you know it.
 
cabse5 said:
You don't know what ultra right-wingism means. It means ultra libertarianism. It mean little to no gov't. It means getting gov't out of the way of the individual and this doesn't describe Hitler at any time.
Click to expand...

So, you equate "anarchy" with "ultra-right-wingism" do you? And you believe that the (here I paraphrase) "ultimate libertarian state is an anarchy", do you?

That's nice.
 
cabse5 said:
Libertarian is a description of someone who wishes for small gov't intervention into their daily lives except for essential issues which change depending on which side of the political aisle you reside. Further, capital L Libertarian is an American pollical group that uses religion, for example, to greatly influence gov't and is for far more gov't control than libertarians. Is confusing, I know, that Libertarian is for large government while libertarian is for small gov't. Small l libertarians started at the beginning of the US and capital L Libertarians started around 1964 in the US. GW Bush was one of those Libertarian types of politicians and Trump is more a libertarian than Libertarian which is why the Bushes hated Trump and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

Your position would be MUCH more understandable if you were to use discrete terms for different things rather than using the same term to describe two different things.

Your first sentence "Libertarian is a description of someone who wishes for small gov't intervention into their daily lives except for essential issues which change depending on which side of the political aisle you reside." actually describes roughly 90% of all human beings from the dawn of government to today. That's the "I don't give a flying truck who is 'running the country' just as long as they stay off my back and I don't particularly care what the neighbours are doing either just as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." school of political thought.

Your next sentence "Further, capital L Libertarian is an American pollical group that uses religion, for example, to greatly influence gov't and is for far more gov't control than libertarians." makes more sense if you re-write it to read "Further, "Libertarians" are an American political group that uses religion, for example, to greatly influence gov't and is for far more gov't control than "libertarians"." in order to highlight the fact that you are talking about two different things that happen to have names that are spelled using the same letters in the same order.

Your "Libertarian is for large government while libertarian is for small gov't." makes perfect sense once someone knows that "Libertarian" and "libertarian" do not stand for the same thing. Otherwise it is absolute garbage. Once frequently uses typography and/or "stops" in punctuation to draw the reader's attention to the fact that they should REALLY be paying attention to what the writer ACTUALLY means because the way that the writer is forced to express it can confuse people who don't pay attention to what they read.

Your ""libertarians" started at the beginning of the US and "Libertarians" started around 1964 in the US." (my typography and punctuation) makes sense in English but makes no sense at all in light of the historical facts.

What the American Revolution actually achieved was the substitution of a "home grown national government" for an "imported national government". The local colonial/state legislatures remained in place untouched and also remained controlled by the members of the same socioeconomic class as had controlled them prior to the American Revolution (admitted the FACTION of that socioeconomic class that did the controlling was changed).

Since your "GW Bush was one of those Libertarian types of politicians and Trump is more a libertarian than Libertarian which is why the Bushes hated Trump and vice-versa." appears to be a statement of personal opinion, I can only agree that that is your opinion and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Times change. Give the US credit for acknowledging that times change and that The Constitution allows for those changes.
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't read any of my posts which say (in essence) just that.

Now, would you like to address my ""After all, the United States of America was a "democratic republic" LONG before women, "Blacks", "Yellows", or "Indians" were considered to be eligible members of the electorate. Or are you going to tell me that the US only became a "democratic republic" after those groups were added to the list of types of people who were considered eligible members of the electorate?"?" - which your "Times change." doesn't do.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I agree on both points - to a very large extent with respect to the DPRK and with a very smaller extent to the PRC.

In China, the LOCAL elections are decided by LOCAL people who chose between LOCAL people to decide who is best suited to deal with LOCAL issues (call that "GOV[sup]1[/sup]"). Those local issues include issues that are in the province of the next senior level of government (call that "GOV[sup]2[/sup]"). The people who compose the members of "GOV[sup]2[/sup]" are chosen by the members of "GOV[sup]1[/sup]" (essentially "the locals" choosing from amongst "the locals"). The issues at the "GOV[sup]2[/sup]" level include issues that are in the province of the next senior level of government (call that "GOV[sup]3[/sup]"). The people who compose the members of "GOV[sup]3[/sup]" are chosen by the members of "GOV[sup]2[/sup]" (essentially "the locals" choosing from amongst "the locals").

If you compare that system to the one that the Founding Fathers originally intended to be in place in the United States of America you will see one heck of a lot of identical features.

In the DPRK, "The Party" makes almost all of the decisions on who is, and who is not, allowed to be a candidate. When there is only one candidate, the electorate receives ballots asking them to "accept" that person as their representative or to "reject" that person as their representative. In the United States of America, if only one person manages to jump through the hoops required to get their name on the ballot, that person is elected REGARDLESS of the wishes of the electorate (the electorate doesn't even get a chance to cast a "Not on your Nelly!" vote).

As an old friend once remarked


"Unless the citizenry is actively (and intelligently) involved in finding out what their government is doing and unless they are successfully ensuring that their government is doing only what it is supposed to be doing, "universal suffrage" and "regularly scheduled elections" are no more "Democracy" than boiling an egg is hatching a chicken." - 'Agent X89A' (ca. 2001)
​

To an outside observer, there are days when it looks like the United States of America is going to go into the hard-boiled egg business.
Click to expand...

I’ve always thought a “none of the above” choice on the ballot would be very useful.

I’ve also thought a ranked vote - where you select all the candidates you’d find acceptable in order of preference - might better represent the will of the people. I’d also find a properly implemented indirect system to fine. Many Americans are so enamored of the popular vote that the won’t even consider that there might be better ways to select representatives.

Many of my countrymen don’t even realize that senators were originally chosen indirectly via state legislatures primarily because they were supposed to represent the interests of the state as a whole and not the populace. I consider the change to popularly elected senators as one of the stupider things we’ve done.

Re: your last paragraph. I fully agree. It’s one of the reasons that I fully support the idea of educating the entire populace even if it’s done on the taxpayers’ dime.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, you equate "anarchy" with "ultra-right-wingism" do you? And you believe that the (here I paraphrase) "ultimate libertarian state is an anarchy", do you?

That's nice.
Click to expand...

Anarchy wouldn't be government, either. Duh.:roll:
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Obviously you haven't read any of my posts which say (in essence) just that.

Now, would you like to address my ""After all, the United States of America was a "democratic republic" LONG before women, "Blacks", "Yellows", or "Indians" were considered to be eligible members of the electorate. Or are you going to tell me that the US only became a "democratic republic" after those groups were added to the list of types of people who were considered eligible members of the electorate?"?" - which your "Times change." doesn't do.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we both speak English? Times change. The people of the US thought one thing about certain groups excluding them from participation in the US and, later, the people of the US thought differently and wanted to include some of the excluded groups into the US. The Supreme Court of the US facilitated this inclusion and SCOTUS reflected the growing change and inclusion of certain excluded groups. Now, certain excluded groups wish to remain excluded from the US and the US can't force, for example, Indians to be included into the US.

You are familiar with the proliferation of different sexes? Think of the US including certain groups into the US like including the proliferation of sexes that currently seek to be recognized.
 
cabse5 said:
Anarchy wouldn't be government, either. Duh.:roll:
Click to expand...

What you actually said was "... ultra right-wingism means. It means ultra libertarianism. It mean little to no gov't." (emphasis added).

To diagram that for you, what you said works out to

  1. ultra right-wingism = ultra libertarianism;
  2. ultra right-wingism = little to no gov't.
    which works out to
  3. ultra libertarianism = little to no gov't;

In any society which has more members than can actually have their say on a matter in such a manner that all other members can hear what they have to say, "No government" is the epitome of "anarchy".

Making the assumption that the society has to make ONLY one decision every 30 days, and allowing 8 hours per day for debate, and if each speaker is allocated 10 minutes to put their case, that means that the largest society that can survive with "no government" is (30 x 8 x 6) or 1,440 people. To implement your "ultra-libertarian" society, the United States of America would have to be divided up into at least 250,000 separate "countries".

That, of course, is highly unlikely to be what you really meant.

PS - Since those decisions would also include all court cases, I suspect that the 250,000 above is an incredibly "conservative" number and the real number would likely be at least one order of magnitude higher.
Maybe you should start investigating who is amending your posts so that they say things that you didn't put in them.
 
cabse5 said:
So, it was in 1943 that Hitler became more left-winged? Is that what you're trying to say?

Do you realize that ultra right-wingers hate big government?
Click to expand...

cabse5 said:
Selling off Jewish businesses even to corporations is a big government endeavor and IS THE OPPOSITE OF AN ULTRA RIGHT-WINGED ENDEAVOR.
Click to expand...

Your big issue here is that you seem to believe that all far right wingers are libertarians. Conservatives are not inherently in favor of small government, any more than left wingers are inherently in favor of big government - by your incredibly short-sighted definition, I would be the absolute most conservative poster in this thread because I seek the complete and utter abolition of nation states worldwide. But anarchy is not right wing, any more than Nazis are left wing for oppressing non-Christians and heavily restricting women's reproductive rights.

Until you actually understand what right wing and left wing means, I have nothing more to gain from talking down to you. Have fun with whatever last word you want to get in.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Your big issue here is that you seem to believe that all far right wingers are libertarians. Conservatives are not inherently in favor of small government, any more than left wingers are inherently in favor of big government - by your incredibly short-sighted definition, I would be the absolute most conservative poster in this thread because I seek the complete and utter abolition of nation states worldwide. But anarchy is not right wing, any more than Nazis are left wing for oppressing non-Christians and heavily restricting women's reproductive rights.

Until you actually understand what right wing and left wing means, I have nothing more to gain from talking down to you. Have fun with whatever last word you want to get in.
Click to expand...

When I see people write things like "So, it was in 1943 that Hitler became more left-winged? Is that what you're trying to say?" I realize that I am reading words from someone who thinks that "national mobilization of all resources in order to stave off impending military defeat" is a "political ideology" and have to suppress giggles.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
When I see people write things like "So, it was in 1943 that Hitler became more left-winged? Is that what you're trying to say?" I realize that I am reading words from someone who thinks that "national mobilization of all resources in order to stave off impending military defeat" is a "political ideology" and have to suppress giggles.
Click to expand...

I bet he thinks that monarchy is a leftist form of government, since it's opposed to free markets and small government. God, what a smooth brain.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I bet he thinks that monarchy is a leftist form of government, since it's opposed to free markets and small government. God, what a smooth brain.
Click to expand...

  1. The United States of America is NOT a monarchy.
  2. The United States of America is NOT "leftist".
    THEREFORE
  3. All monarchies are "leftist".

This is a practical application of the "Claque Trump" approved logical principle

"Things not equal to the same thing are equal to each other.".​
 
Jesse Booth said:
I bet he thinks that monarchy is a leftist form of government, since it's opposed to free markets and small government. God, what a smooth brain.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's as outstanding insult. Can I borrow it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom