• 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!

political debate

Bootz

Active member
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
421
Reaction score
42
Location
Humble Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Way back in time, when political thought was far less complex than today. When life was simple and Multinational Corporations did not exist. A constitution was drafted for the savages in America. Conventions were called, debates ensued, and the foundation of nation was forged.
Also, in 1789 the French had a little try at a Constitution. Theirs lasted two years and led to Napoleon. The age of enlightenment had two offspring. One died an early death the other still lives. The process however was quite different.
In America special ratification conventions and debates took place. In their midst were the writings of the Federalist and the Anti-federalists. Few can read these simple papers today and understand their magnitude at first read. Or the 5th read for that matter. These men were deep thinkers and wordsmiths. Their ideas were piercing and transcendent. Eventually they even led to a Bill of rights.
Today our political debate is driven by emotion, not by logic and reason. Not by a keen understanding of history and the nature of man. But instead by soundbites and talking points. Spoon fed by media giants.
They concerned themselves with a free press so that dissent could occur. A large part of our universities today, try to stifle dissent, instead of stimulate thought.
CONSIDER THIS…… IN ORDER FOR CONSENSUS TO BE MAINTAINED IT MUST BE IMPOSED.
The imposition of consensus necessarily comes at the expense of liberty.
In the context of intellectual giants, well versed in human history and human institutions, how do we measure up as a people today. Do not kid yourselves to think we can even compare.
In this light please consider that the 2nd amendment was conceived as a part of the Bill of Rights as a protection against government and the silencing of opposing viewpoints.
They wrote timeless treatise. We struggle to read 1200 words. Sometimes 140 characters is a brain drain. Our technology has improved and made our minds atrophy. Social media, reality TV and other distractions attract our attention, while appreciation of the living State is considered mundane.
In our progress we are taught not to discuss religion or politics. Even though we owe our affluence to such subjects. It is not ok to espouse opinions, it is necessary to discuss reasoned positions. In order to accomplish this, we cannot simplify complex issues.
The reasoned men of the enlightened era viewed the Constitution as a whole. Not by sentences or snippets. Their experiment still lives today while others died early deaths. IF you feel that you are wiser than them, please research their work first to understand their thought processes. AS you do you will begin understand your folly of thinking your ideas compare.

For those of you that are clever, you will note that the colonies were funded by multinational corporations.
 
Way back in time, when political thought was far less complex than today. When life was simple and Multinational Corporations did not exist. A constitution was drafted for the savages in America. Conventions were called, debates ensued, and the foundation of nation was forged.
The imposition of consensus necessarily comes at the expense of liberty.
In the context of intellectual giants, well versed in human history and human institutions, how do we measure up as a people today. Do not kid yourselves to think we can even compare.
In this light please consider that the 2nd amendment was conceived as a part of the Bill of Rights as a protection against government and the silencing of opposing viewpoints.
They wrote timeless treatise. We struggle to read 1200 words. Sometimes 140 characters is a brain drain. Our technology has improved and made our minds atrophy. Social media, reality TV and other distractions attract our attention, while appreciation of the living State is considered mundane.
In our progress we are taught not to discuss religion or politics. Even though we owe our affluence to such subjects. It is not ok to espouse opinions, it is necessary to discuss reasoned positions. In order to accomplish this, we cannot simplify complex issues.
The reasoned men of the enlightened era viewed the Constitution as a whole. Not by sentences or snippets. Their experiment still lives today while others died early deaths. IF you feel that you are wiser than them, please research their work first to understand their thought processes. AS you do you will begin understand your folly of thinking your ideas compare.

For those of you that are clever, you will note that the colonies were funded by multinational corporations.

I strongly disagree - our brains have not atrophied. If anything, our brains are working faster than ever before, being forced to do so by the ever-quickening pace of modern life. I quite agree that people don't read long books as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that our brains are any lesser for it. Look at how much more aware of the world you are now than, say, your grandparents were. Instead of being limited to just a few sources of media, you've got access to what sometimes seems as an infinite number of media sources. Look how many Americans have traveled overseas than we did fifty years ago - and look at everything we've learned. And look at just how much more there is to learn - from the internet to daily life using cell phones to avoiding scams to the 24/7 news cycle to HIV and ADHD and PTSD and autism and eating foods that our parents and grandparents never heard of - the list is effectively endless - there's so much more to learn today! That's why I'm of the opinion that because there's so much more to learn, high school should last at least one, probably two more years...and music and art should once more be a normal part of it.

I get the impression that you may very well be of the opinion that video games rot our brains, too - but it turns out that fast-paced video games actually enable our brains to work faster and remember more. What's more, it's normal these days for kids to play as a team on video games when the other players are from all over the world - and so they learn even more about the world around them. This doesn't mean that everything is better now - personally, I lament not being able to get my sons interested in gardening or in working on old cars, but in the meantime they've seen and done things that most kids here stateside wouldn't believe.

So it boils down to this: technological process is like a tsunami - short of worldwide catastrophe, you can't stop it - it's going to keep coming no matter what you do. So your only two choices are this: either learn to surf the wave and ride it for all it's worth...or get swamped and ruined by it. That's why I told my sons that I wanted them to learn two lessons: to adapt, and to be happy.
 
Way back in time, when political thought was far less complex than today. When life was simple and Multinational Corporations did not exist. A constitution was drafted for the savages in America. Conventions were called, debates ensued, and the foundation of nation was forged.
Also, in 1789 the French had a little try at a Constitution. Theirs lasted two years and led to Napoleon. The age of enlightenment had two offspring. One died an early death the other still lives. The process however was quite different.
In America special ratification conventions and debates took place. In their midst were the writings of the Federalist and the Anti-federalists. Few can read these simple papers today and understand their magnitude at first read. Or the 5th read for that matter. These men were deep thinkers and wordsmiths. Their ideas were piercing and transcendent. Eventually they even led to a Bill of rights.
Today our political debate is driven by emotion, not by logic and reason. Not by a keen understanding of history and the nature of man. But instead by soundbites and talking points. Spoon fed by media giants.
They concerned themselves with a free press so that dissent could occur. A large part of our universities today, try to stifle dissent, instead of stimulate thought.
CONSIDER THIS…… IN ORDER FOR CONSENSUS TO BE MAINTAINED IT MUST BE IMPOSED.
The imposition of consensus necessarily comes at the expense of liberty.
In the context of intellectual giants, well versed in human history and human institutions, how do we measure up as a people today. Do not kid yourselves to think we can even compare.
In this light please consider that the 2nd amendment was conceived as a part of the Bill of Rights as a protection against government and the silencing of opposing viewpoints.
They wrote timeless treatise. We struggle to read 1200 words. Sometimes 140 characters is a brain drain. Our technology has improved and made our minds atrophy. Social media, reality TV and other distractions attract our attention, while appreciation of the living State is considered mundane.
In our progress we are taught not to discuss religion or politics. Even though we owe our affluence to such subjects. It is not ok to espouse opinions, it is necessary to discuss reasoned positions. In order to accomplish this, we cannot simplify complex issues.
The reasoned men of the enlightened era viewed the Constitution as a whole. Not by sentences or snippets. Their experiment still lives today while others died early deaths. IF you feel that you are wiser than them, please research their work first to understand their thought processes. AS you do you will begin understand your folly of thinking your ideas compare.

For those of you that are clever, you will note that the colonies were funded by multinational corporations.

That's the difference between sincerity and the free market.
 
I strongly disagree - our brains have not atrophied. If anything, our brains are working faster than ever before, being forced to do so by the ever-quickening pace of modern life. I quite agree that people don't read long books as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that our brains are any lesser for it. Look at how much more aware of the world you are now than, say, your grandparents were. Instead of being limited to just a few sources of media, you've got access to what sometimes seems as an infinite number of media sources. Look how many Americans have traveled overseas than we did fifty years ago - and look at everything we've learned. And look at just how much more there is to learn - from the internet to daily life using cell phones to avoiding scams to the 24/7 news cycle to HIV and ADHD and PTSD and autism and eating foods that our parents and grandparents never heard of - the list is effectively endless - there's so much more to learn today! That's why I'm of the opinion that because there's so much more to learn, high school should last at least one, probably two more years...and music and art should once more be a normal part of it.

I get the impression that you may very well be of the opinion that video games rot our brains, too - but it turns out that fast-paced video games actually enable our brains to work faster and remember more. What's more, it's normal these days for kids to play as a team on video games when the other players are from all over the world - and so they learn even more about the world around them. This doesn't mean that everything is better now - personally, I lament not being able to get my sons interested in gardening or in working on old cars, but in the meantime they've seen and done things that most kids here stateside wouldn't believe.

So it boils down to this: technological process is like a tsunami - short of worldwide catastrophe, you can't stop it - it's going to keep coming no matter what you do. So your only two choices are this: either learn to surf the wave and ride it for all it's worth...or get swamped and ruined by it. That's why I told my sons that I wanted them to learn two lessons: to adapt, and to be happy.

A well thought out and thoughtful response, I read it more than once. However, Franklin, a founder was quite inventive and worldly. while it may appear that a watch is an advancement, people used to tell time by looking at the sky. What is was specifically referring to with atrophied minds is the way we tackle complex issues. WE try to simplify issues into for or against as opposed to thorough evaluations which consider repercussions.
you correctly point out that more people experience the world today because of jets, the internet and other technologies. But, many cultures mixed in the forming of the nation.

let us take it away from day to day life and focus on our leaders, do you feel that our leaders today have the intellectual grasp of issues that our founders possessed? Do you feel the issues that impact all our lives are as reasoned as the Founders?
Do you feel that politics are not an important subject for the average person?

You ave focused on a relatively small snippet of the OP while ignoring the French and most other significant issues which makes my point about the substance of debate today versus then.
 
That's the difference between sincerity and the free market.

I struggle to interpret that comment. Free markets would appear to be the most sincere.
 
I struggle to interpret that comment. Free markets would appear to be the most sincere.

The free market has no loyalty or sincerity.
 
The free market has no loyalty or sincerity.

competition has no impact on product quality, quality has no impact on brand loyalty, is that what you are saying?

which system do you believe has loyalty and sincerity?

maybe the military? or government contracts in general?
 
Way back in time, when political thought was far less complex than today. When life was simple and Multinational Corporations did not exist. A constitution was drafted for the savages in America. Conventions were called, debates ensued, and the foundation of nation was forged.
Also, in 1789 the French had a little try at a Constitution. Theirs lasted two years and led to Napoleon. The age of enlightenment had two offspring. One died an early death the other still lives. The process however was quite different.
In America special ratification conventions and debates took place. In their midst were the writings of the Federalist and the Anti-federalists. Few can read these simple papers today and understand their magnitude at first read. Or the 5th read for that matter. These men were deep thinkers and wordsmiths. Their ideas were piercing and transcendent. Eventually they even led to a Bill of rights.
Today our political debate is driven by emotion, not by logic and reason. Not by a keen understanding of history and the nature of man. But instead by soundbites and talking points. Spoon fed by media giants.
They concerned themselves with a free press so that dissent could occur. A large part of our universities today, try to stifle dissent, instead of stimulate thought.
CONSIDER THIS…… IN ORDER FOR CONSENSUS TO BE MAINTAINED IT MUST BE IMPOSED.
The imposition of consensus necessarily comes at the expense of liberty.
In the context of intellectual giants, well versed in human history and human institutions, how do we measure up as a people today. Do not kid yourselves to think we can even compare.
In this light please consider that the 2nd amendment was conceived as a part of the Bill of Rights as a protection against government and the silencing of opposing viewpoints.
They wrote timeless treatise. We struggle to read 1200 words. Sometimes 140 characters is a brain drain. Our technology has improved and made our minds atrophy. Social media, reality TV and other distractions attract our attention, while appreciation of the living State is considered mundane.
In our progress we are taught not to discuss religion or politics. Even though we owe our affluence to such subjects. It is not ok to espouse opinions, it is necessary to discuss reasoned positions. In order to accomplish this, we cannot simplify complex issues.
The reasoned men of the enlightened era viewed the Constitution as a whole. Not by sentences or snippets. Their experiment still lives today while others died early deaths. IF you feel that you are wiser than them, please research their work first to understand their thought processes. AS you do you will begin understand your folly of thinking your ideas compare.

For those of you that are clever, you will note that the colonies were funded by multinational corporations.

For way too many people, history started on the day they were born. If we did not expand and occupy the continent, we would not exist. North America would still be English, Spanish, French, and Russian colonies today and all the Indians would have been enslaved or eliminated. Labor shortages would be supplemented by conscripted labor (slaves) from China and Asia just like in the 1800’s.

Today, many people act as if we have a magical right to exist and don’t need a military because no other nation would seek to dominant us “because nations don’t do that to each other”. The only right we have is to fight for our freedom and our survival.
 
For way too many people, history started on the day they were born. If we did not expand and occupy the continent, we would not exist. North America would still be English, Spanish, French, and Russian colonies today and all the Indians would have been enslaved or eliminated. Labor shortages would be supplemented by conscripted labor (slaves) from China and Asia just like in the 1800’s.

Today, many people act as if we have a magical right to exist and don’t need a military because no other nation would seek to dominant us “because nations don’t do that to each other”. The only right we have is to fight for our freedom and our survival.

when i talk to kids some of the girls did not know who Hillary Clinton was but knew everything about Kim Kardashian.
 
competition has no impact on product quality, quality has no impact on brand loyalty, is that what you are saying?

which system do you believe has loyalty and sincerity?

maybe the military? or government contracts in general?

What I'm saying is the the free market has no soul, because the people that run it allow it to destroy others.
 
What I'm saying is the the free market has no soul, because the people that run it allow it to destroy others.

in a free market values develop in sympathy with the customer base.
 
Yeah; you're not getting it.
i believe i asked you for your preferences, you gave none. you say you know more than Adam Smith, but offer nothing to substantiate your point of view.

so far you are an empty jar.
 
i believe i asked you for your preferences, you gave none. you say you know more than Adam Smith, but offer nothing to substantiate your point of view.

so far you are an empty jar.

So, show me where I said that I know more than Adam Smith.


Your OP is complaining about insincerity in America. My statement about the Free Market has to do with the forces that run our society now, and what forces founded our society: the free market has no sincerity.
 
I strongly disagree - our brains have not atrophied. If anything, our brains are working faster than ever before, being forced to do so by the ever-quickening pace of modern life. I quite agree that people don't read long books as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that our brains are any lesser for it. Look at how much more aware of the world you are now than, say, your grandparents were. Instead of being limited to just a few sources of media, you've got access to what sometimes seems as an infinite number of media sources. Look how many Americans have traveled overseas than we did fifty years ago - and look at everything we've learned. And look at just how much more there is to learn - from the internet to daily life using cell phones to avoiding scams to the 24/7 news cycle to HIV and ADHD and PTSD and autism and eating foods that our parents and grandparents never heard of - the list is effectively endless - there's so much more to learn today! That's why I'm of the opinion that because there's so much more to learn, high school should last at least one, probably two more years...and music and art should once more be a normal part of it.

I get the impression that you may very well be of the opinion that video games rot our brains, too - but it turns out that fast-paced video games actually enable our brains to work faster and remember more. What's more, it's normal these days for kids to play as a team on video games when the other players are from all over the world - and so they learn even more about the world around them. This doesn't mean that everything is better now - personally, I lament not being able to get my sons interested in gardening or in working on old cars, but in the meantime they've seen and done things that most kids here stateside wouldn't believe.

So it boils down to this: technological process is like a tsunami - short of worldwide catastrophe, you can't stop it - it's going to keep coming no matter what you do. So your only two choices are this: either learn to surf the wave and ride it for all it's worth...or get swamped and ruined by it. That's why I told my sons that I wanted them to learn two lessons: to adapt, and to be happy.

You're probably right about our brains, but what is being ingested into them sure has changed.
 
A well thought out and thoughtful response, I read it more than once. However, Franklin, a founder was quite inventive and worldly. while it may appear that a watch is an advancement, people used to tell time by looking at the sky. What is was specifically referring to with atrophied minds is the way we tackle complex issues. WE try to simplify issues into for or against as opposed to thorough evaluations which consider repercussions.
you correctly point out that more people experience the world today because of jets, the internet and other technologies. But, many cultures mixed in the forming of the nation.

let us take it away from day to day life and focus on our leaders, do you feel that our leaders today have the intellectual grasp of issues that our founders possessed? Do you feel the issues that impact all our lives are as reasoned as the Founders?
Do you feel that politics are not an important subject for the average person?

You ave focused on a relatively small snippet of the OP while ignoring the French and most other significant issues which makes my point about the substance of debate today versus then.

I our leaders aren't any less knowledgeable.

They just have to perform the work their investors pay for within the framework of a democratic republic.

Which makes it LOOK like they are stupid.
 
So, show me where I said that I know more than Adam Smith.


Your OP is complaining about insincerity in America. My statement about the Free Market has to do with the forces that run our society now, and what forces founded our society: the free market has no sincerity.


do you believe we have had a free market in America? or do you believe the government picks winners and losers? and where did my OP say anything about insincerity?
 
I our leaders aren't any less knowledgeable.

They just have to perform the work their investors pay for within the framework of a democratic republic.

Which makes it LOOK like they are stupid.

you believe the lawyers in Washington are as knowledgeable about history and philosophy as the founders? So you believe Trump is equal to Jefferson? Clinton to Madison?
 
A well thought out and thoughtful response, I read it more than once. However, Franklin, a founder was quite inventive and worldly. while it may appear that a watch is an advancement, people used to tell time by looking at the sky. What is was specifically referring to with atrophied minds is the way we tackle complex issues. WE try to simplify issues into for or against as opposed to thorough evaluations which consider repercussions.
you correctly point out that more people experience the world today because of jets, the internet and other technologies. But, many cultures mixed in the forming of the nation.

let us take it away from day to day life and focus on our leaders, do you feel that our leaders today have the intellectual grasp of issues that our founders possessed? Do you feel the issues that impact all our lives are as reasoned as the Founders?
Do you feel that politics are not an important subject for the average person?

You ave focused on a relatively small snippet of the OP while ignoring the French and most other significant issues which makes my point about the substance of debate today versus then.

Thank you for the kind response. I did focus on that "relatively small snippet" since I felt that one phrase best summed up what I felt was the main thrust of the whole of the OP, that we are lesser than our founding fathers. It reminds me of a verse from Genesis 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

It's so common - especially for those of us who are mature in years - to look back and see the greats of human history, at Alexander or his teacher Aristotle, or at Cicero, or Cyrus, or Kublai Khan, or any of the other uncounted hundreds of men (and historically-forgotten women) who shaped the world, and lament that people today are lesser than before. We look at the great leaps of imagination and understanding that gave us Socrates and Da Vinci, Gutenberg and Zheng He, the bankers of Florence who gave us double-entry ledgers and the rise of Napoleon which spread Republicanism through so much of Europe. Their knowledge of their respective arts was deep. How can we not think that we are lesser than they? What hubris is it that allows us to think that we might know better than they?

But we do know better than they, in so many ways...including when it comes to that document called the Constitution. That's why it was a stroke of genius for the founding fathers to include the option to add or remove amendments - they understood that times - and knowledge and understanding and technologies and capabilities - change. Looking again at your OP, I'll address this statement that applies to the previous sentence: "The reasoned men of the enlightened era viewed the Constitution as a whole. Not by sentences or snippets. Their experiment still lives today while others died early deaths. IF you feel that you are wiser than them, please research their work first to understand their thought processes. AS you do you will begin understand your folly of thinking your ideas compare."

My reply continues in the next comment.
 
You ave focused on a relatively small snippet of the OP while ignoring the French and most other significant issues which makes my point about the substance of debate today versus then.

Has the Constitution become unquestionable Scripture? Of course not. And again, the founding fathers were wise enough to allow for changes, for they understood that changes would come of which they could not even dream at their time. For instance, you refer to the Second Amendment. Remember the first phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state". At the time, there was a great debate as to whether we should have a standing army at all, so the provision was included to enable all male citizens to band together in case of invasion - which was a very real need at the time, as the War of 1812 reminds us. However, is a "well regulated militia" necessary to the security of the state today? Of course not - such could not hope to stand against a modern army...which may be why we've maintained a standing army since not long after the Constitution was ratified. The founding fathers were among the most literate of their time, and they would have known that according to the rules of English then and now, the first phrase is a conditional phrase, and if the first phrase of the 2A no longer applies, then the rest of the 2A is obviated. But at the time of writing, they did not know that there would relatively soon come a time when a well-regulated militia" was not at all necessary to the security of the state. There's even an argument that the 2A was included to preserve slavery - which includes some contemporary statements by the founding fathers themselves - but I know too little to be able to judge either way in that respect. Until I know more, I see that as only a curiosity.

Back to the founding fathers - yes, they were wise - no argument there, but you'll have a hard time finding a great wise man throughout all history who did not hold at least one patently-ridiculous belief. But when it comes to the founding fathers themselves, can you imagine what they would say about what weapons people could or should have if they saw that one man could kill 48 and wound more than 500 in a single shooting, or if they saw that a troubled young man could walk into into a school and murder 17 students and wound many more...both of which happened with "legal" firearms and in a matter of mere minutes? Would the founding fathers have still decided that the right for almost any American citizen to own almost any firearm was still more precious than the lives of those innocents? Would they still have thought that way, even given the fact that a well-regulated militia has not been necessary to the security of the state since before the Civil War? I don't think so! I think they would be too wise to follow the inflammatory rhetoric of the likes of Wayne LaPierre who recently claimed that gun ownership is (in so many words) a "God-given right". I refer you to what a much earlier NRA president said in 1934: The NRA President at the time, Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praised the new state gun controls in Congress. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

I submit to you, then, that I do not pretend to be wiser than the founding fathers, but instead that today's gun-rights supporters no longer remember the why of the 2A, and that that particular why no longer exists and has not done so for many, many years, and that the plain language of the 2A clearly shows that if the conditional phrase is no longer in effect, then the remainder of the 2A is obviated.
 
do you believe we have had a free market in America? or do you believe the government picks winners and losers? and where did my OP say anything about insincerity?

The market is not as 'free' as the wealthy industrialists want it to be. It DOES however, as we've seen once again in 2008 and through deregulation, take form you to give to itself and the mission of industry is to take "liberty" back to the Robber Baron ear of unregulated unfettered corporate will. Our founders went of our way to set up a nation wherein equality of opportunity and social protections - to facilitate equality were set up as a guarantee.

ps; you have still failed to show where I said that I knew more than Adam Smith.
 
The market is not as 'free' as the wealthy industrialists want it to be. It DOES however, as we've seen once again in 2008 and through deregulation, take form you to give to itself and the mission of industry is to take "liberty" back to the Robber Baron ear of unregulated unfettered corporate will. Our founders went of our way to set up a nation wherein equality of opportunity and social protections - to facilitate equality were set up as a guarantee.

ps; you have still failed to show where I said that I knew more than Adam Smith.

when you disagree with the concepts of the invisible hand it is implicit you think he is wiser than he.

Now, sir, you and i view the progressive era far differently. You think the creation of the FED was done by the private sector, i think it was done by government in partnership with the private sector. AS most large industries received large government contracts for the war. all of this financed by banking interests backed by taxpayers.

Government has supported bug business over the objections of Jefferson Ideology since the times of Lincoln. There is capitalism which is private ownership that may be America, but there was never free market Capitalism here since 1860.
 
Back
Top Bottom