• 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!

Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

James972 said:
Conservatives have no objection to a military big enough to keep us alive, obviously. It big government they object to, not staying alive.
Click to expand...

It's way more than that. We spend more than other top nations combined, and it isn't just to keep us alive.
 
James972 said:
and still we were unprepared for Pearl Harbor Korea Vietnam 9/11 Iraq, Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

There's more to winning wars than just a large military. Some of those events like Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 had nothing to do with the size of our military. Failures to act on intelligence is an issue as well.
 
ElChupacabra said:
It's way more than that. We spend more than other top nations combined, and it isn't just to keep us alive.
Click to expand...

The US spends more on defense than the next 20 counties combined. Who exactly are these people afraid of? We have never been invaded since the war of 1812.
 
Lisa said:
The US spends more on defense than the next 20 counties combined. Who exactly are these people afraid of? We have never been invaded since the war of 1812.
Click to expand...


I see it as two main motivators:

1. Having a large and agile military capable of protecting our political/financial interests abroad
2. Keeping the military industrial complex going because it is a jobs/profit provider

I think that's a more honest assessment than claiming its to protect the country from invasion. There are no major military powers on this side of the hemisphere, and we have the nuclear deterrent as well.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I see it as two main motivators:

1. Having a large and agile military capable of protecting our political/financial interests abroad
2. Keeping the military industrial complex going because it is a jobs/profit provider

I think that's a more honest assessment than claiming its to protect the country from invasion. There are no major military powers on this side of the hemisphere, and we have the nuclear deterrent as well.
Click to expand...


Justification for your #2 doesn't always work out for the "common man". Boeing's fired CEO got his $62 million payout confirmed the same day 2,800 people in the 737 Max supply chain were laid off
 
ElChupacabra said:
I see it as two main motivators:

1. Having a large and agile military capable of protecting our political/financial interests abroad
2. Keeping the military industrial complex going because it is a jobs/profit provider

I think that's a more honest assessment than claiming its to protect the country from invasion. There are no major military powers on this side of the hemisphere, and we have the nuclear deterrent as well.
Click to expand...

#2 above should include providing some very important campaign cash.
 
James972 said:
yes they did and that is when Madison and Jefferson formed the Republican Party to oppose the expansion of liberal government. When they won they called it the Second American Revolution because it defined the idea behind military revolution of 1776. NOw I'm sure you understand?
Click to expand...

You are factually incorrect.

First, the Republican Party was formed on March 20, 1854. This is the party of Republicans today.

Second, the political party founded by Jefferson and Madison was the Democratic-Republican Party around 1792. By 1824, the party would split into two factions. One would be the Whig party (more on them in a moment) and the other gave rise to the current Democrat Party. While true, it was sometimes called the Republican Party...it was not the Republican party that you know today.

Third, the Whig party which had splintered off from the Democratic-Republican Party lasted a few years before collapsing from political failures. The Whig Party ideology was founded on the principal idea that the federal government was responsible for funding many government projects, distribution of wealth from federally acquired lands to fund education and what welfare programs that existed at that time. They also were pro-nanny state; they insisted on laws like temperance on the nation. Due to Whig political failures in elections, a new political party, the Republican Party of today, had been created and essentially absorbed the Whig Party, killing it.

Fourth, that means that the current GOP's history is one of a party that while DID want to curb immigration, executive branch powers and slavery...they were, in the beginning, pro-union, pro-nanny state, pro-redistribution of wealth and pro-growing of the federal government. Now, of course, over time, that would change. Just as the DNC was once a party of racists, they also changed.

Fifth, the Democrat Party, in the beginning, was actually the party of republicanism (the ideology, not the GOP party). Limited government, more individual rights, etc. Jefferson would join the Democrat Party after the Democratic-Republican Party split.

My point? The party you referenced to had opposing ideologies of liberalism and conservatism as we know it today. Both supported the ideology of republicanism...which, for its time...was considered, and still is today...a liberal idea to monarchies and other types of authoritarian powers. So, the idea that we were never liberal is factually incorrect. Nor is the idea that the nation was primarily conservative because the Constitution is not conservative itself. It embodies the concept of republicanism, which both liberals and conservatives practice to this day. And it was that republicanism...an ideology that was in stark contrast to the conservative powers of authoritarian governments...that gave us the Constitution. Therefore, liberalism is not against the Constitution.

"NOw I'm sure you understand?"
 
James972 said:
if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?? Do you know what a strawman is??
Click to expand...

No, you said you don't count the military as part of the government.


So which is it?

Should the US military be counted as part of the US government (specifically the executive branch) - with it's huge manpower and astronomical budget ?
 
Rich2018 said:
No, you said you don't count the military as part of the government.


So which is it?

Should the US military be counted as part of the US government (specifically the executive branch) - with it's huge manpower and astronomical budget ?
Click to expand...

No should not be counted in the sense of being opposed to conservative limited government philosophy since conservatives like a limited govt but not a limited defense. IS this too complicated for you?
 
Jason Warfield said:
Second, the political party founded by Jefferson and Madison was the Democratic-Republican Party around 1792.
Click to expand...

if you have a primary source to corroborate that lie I"ll pay you $10,00. Bet???
 
Jason Warfield said:
First, the Republican Party was formed on March 20, 1854. This is the party of Republicans today.
Click to expand...
you're obviously confused; the Republican Party of Jefferson has a much more similarity to todays limited govt party than to Lincoln Party. Welcome to your first lesson in American History.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Fourth, that means that the current GOP's history is one of a party that while DID want to curb immigration,"
Click to expand...

so confused!!! Issue in all of human history is freedom versus government, not, omg, immigration!!!!Jeffersonian Republicans and modern Republicans are for freedom while Democrats are for government ie monarchy /communism. Now do you have it straight??
 
Jason Warfield said:
Jefferson would join the Democrat Party after the Democratic-Republican Party split.

"
Click to expand...

Jefferson was the First Republican and formed the Republican Party to stand for freedom from liberal government. As Party names changed his anti government ideology did not. His ideology was the basis for the COnstitution.
 
Jason Warfield said:
My point? The party you referenced to had opposing ideologies of liberalism and conservatism as we know it today."
Click to expand...

Jefferson was for freedom from liberal government so using todays definition was very very very conservative
 
James972 said:
Of course it does, by limiting central govt to a few enumerated powers. So then how can liberals legally hold office when they must swear an oath to defend a Constitution they openly despise? Does anyone actually believe someone like Bernie Sanders when he takes the oath of office?
Click to expand...

The danger the Constitutional freedoms pose is the fact that criminals have established so many protections against prosecution that they can literally lie, cheat, steal and buy their way into political power without being criminally charged for anything. Once in power these thugs can suspend all laws and the Constitution as they see fit, just as Adamn Schittf did in the impeachment lynching of President Trump.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Therefore, liberalism is not against the Constitution.

"
Click to expand...

Constitution strictly limited government to a few enumerated powers so, using today's definitions was very very conservative and made liberalism illegal. 1+1=2
 
ElChupacabra said:
I think that's a more honest assessment than claiming its to protect the country from invasion. There are no major military powers on this side of the hemisphere, and we have the nuclear deterrent as well.
Click to expand...

We tried being isolationist before Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
 
James972 said:
No should not be counted in the sense of being opposed to conservative limited government philosophy since conservatives like a limited govt but not a limited defense. IS this too complicated for you?
Click to expand...

Would you not say that the defense provided by the early US governments was extremely limited ?

So you wouldn't count the Wehrmacht or SS as part of the Nazi government ? (1933-1939)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom