• 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!

How Did Liberals polarize America?

blarg said:
or abide by are courts and respect peoples rights those some who would wage war over abortion and marrage need to be pout down for the good of every one else not given power over regions of the country in violation of are rights
Click to expand...

you miss the point. the liberals want to use liberal national courts to decide for the entire nation and the national courts are going alone. Get it now?
 
eohrnberger said:
You do realize, for example, that congress has exempted itself from insider trading laws, right? Now why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

an extremely trivial problem given $20 trillion in debt and the nation's inner cities turned into war zones, etc etc. Do you understand?
 
James972 said:
you miss the point. the liberals want to use liberal national courts to decide for the entire nation and the national courts are going alone. Get it now?
Click to expand...

and the conservative use the courts to their advantage and they do it to take away peels freedoms as well , abortion and gay marriage and even guns are not right or wrong because of state lines

recognizing or taking away peoples rights on the state level is the same problem but 50 times over and it takes way lees people to accomplish

so instead of walking away from national democracy and court decisions when things are not going your way to set up you own paradise at the expense of the minority wher you live maybe come up with better arguments for the whole country
 
James972 said:
what on earth are you talking about???
Click to expand...

some one getting an abortion or getting married to a person of the same gender is not taking your rights away but is very popular with quite a few conservatives
 
blarg said:
some one getting an abortion or getting married to a person of the same gender is not taking your rights away but is very popular with quite a few conservatives
Click to expand...

so do you want this to be decided nationally for entire nation or on the state level to end the polarization and chance of losing rights that matter to you most??
 
James972 said:
By pushing all issues to Washington so there is only one national answer for to every question. If you are passionate about guns abortion taxes immigration etc you must fight for a national liberal law to protect your interests. Whereas if states held the power as the Constitution intended you could simple move to a state that supported your interests.
Click to expand...

Sure, your Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class would be fine with that, they have no control over states. Read the Powell Memorandum.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Sure, your Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class would be fine with that, they have no control over states. Read the Powell Memorandum.
Click to expand...
what on earth are you talking about? Do you support liberal federal decisions on all issues or state decisions??
 
James972 said:
what on earth are you talking about? Do you support liberal federal decisions on all issues or state decisions??
Click to expand...

I do not subscribe to your one of two boxes perceptual reality. But I hear you can smoke pot in CO. Ah the states.
 
Fenton Lum said:
I do not subscribe to your one of two boxes perceptual reality. But I hear you can smoke pot in CO. Ah the states.
Click to expand...

so what is your solution???? Why so afraid to tell us??
 
James972 said:
an extremely trivial problem given $20 trillion in debt and the nation's inner cities turned into war zones, etc etc. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the corruption of congress, the leaders of the nation, isn't a trivial problem, but is in fact a more foundational problem?

Or is it that you believe that some corruption isn't worth bothering about?
 
eohrnberger said:
Do you understand that the corruption of congress, the leaders of the nation, isn't a trivial problem, but is in fact a more foundational problem?

Or is it that you believe that some corruption isn't worth bothering about?
Click to expand...

1) most in Congress are very honorable people
2) you have not pointed to any significant corruption
3) our problem is liberalism by a factor of 10,000%
 
How did liberals polarize America?

Basically by kicking God and his Word to the curb in favor of their subjective moral relativism.
 
Nickyjo said:
Ok, modern civilization... and decency. What is your beef with the 20th century? I would rather have the burden of the above benefits, things that file the rough edges of capitalism, than slavery, human sacrifice, absolute monarchy, etc. My point was that in our wisdom (or foolishness, if you will), we have decided that the free market does not work perfectly, and that the intervention of the state, deep or otherwise, makes things better. I note that you are labeled Libertarian. Years ago I read the party's platform and vision. Things may have changed, but it seemed like reading Marx where he or his followers posited that the state would wither away. More pie in the sky.

But maybe I am over defining your views. What of the current system would you eliminate? How would you deal with the elderly and the poor, with the environment, etc.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it more accurate to say it is the price we pay for the "modern" and nominally democratic social-welfare state, and the elevation of the modern state into the primary authority and 'top-down' direction for all of society and individuals. Mind you, I am well aware of the "progressive" mindset, that our contemporary "wisdom" is on the right side of history. But there is no right side of history - in 100,200,300 years from now many of our latest social beliefs will be considered arcane if not absurd...superseded by "new" fads and shared "wisdom" on the "right side of history".

"What we decided" is the result of forces (both 'decided and undecided) that provide the many arcs to history from republics, into empire, into barbarian rule, into feudal Kingdoms, into Religious theocracy, and back again to Republics. And on the occasion that "we decided" it depended on who the "we" were.

But to the small degree that we have a choice, my "beef" is we are arcing away from some of the core aspirations of a more enlightened age - when the state was far less omnesent, when a society (rather than the State) of voluntary association and individual rights to ownership of one's labor and property were respected. Since the 1920s, the 'choices made' by and through the state has more often harmed, more than helped, the pursuit of happiness. It has created a huge dependency class, spiralling deficits, massive and misdirected investment in housing, and an increasingly polarized society...each member always demanding "MORE" from others to fund that member's special pleadings. It has engendered a society wherein character is "quaint" and children are taught more social duty more than personal honor and integrity.

To your question: I believe in classical liberalism and the related minimal state (e.g. Anarchy, State, And Utopia by Nozick, J.S. Mills). I would have likely done nothing for "poor people" or "the elderly" other than guarantee their rights. I would leave to the voluntary society; those who wish to help may. No one is forced to sacrifice to others for whom they did not accept responsibility for.

Only to the degree necessary to preserve a society to protect each of our autonomy against fraud or violence, would I support public programs. Obviously that requires some form of minimal schooling to 'enculturate' the young into a value system, and as a last resort perhaps some soup lines and a crust of bread for the temporarily impoverished.

Therein will begin the process of weaning the moochers (the majority of Americans) from the teat.
 
James972 said:
1) most in Congress are very honorable people
Click to expand...

Meh. It may be that its only a few bad apples which are spoiling the rest of the barrel, but I suspect the entire 'DC system' has geared itself promoting its own corruption.

2) you have not pointed to any significant corruption
Click to expand...

The number of instances of congressional corruption is there for everyone' s Googling. Is it any surprise that there are millions in sexual harassment settlements that have only recently been uncovered (you'd have thought that some investigative journalists would have uncovered that years ago)

3) our problem is liberalism by a factor of 10,000%
Click to expand...

Not going to disagree with this.
 
James972 said:
By pushing all issues to Washington so there is only one national answer for to every question. If you are passionate about guns abortion taxes immigration etc you must fight for a national liberal law to protect your interests. Whereas if states held the power as the Constitution intended you could simple move to a state that supported your interests.
Click to expand...

You are completely wrong, liberals polarized america with a tan suit, thanks obama!!!
 
James972 said:
on the state level or lower so you don't have a soviet liberal central govt monopoly impoverishing everyone until 200 million are starving to death. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

No, I don’t understand. If the states or localities took responsibility, people wouldnt have looked to the feds to solve things. (Best I can tell, Mississippi pays $170 per month to a family of three, people might attempt to look to the feds for national standards.) But how are Social Security, Medicare, etc. impoverishing everyone? When Huey Long tried things like that at the state level in Louisiana, his critics called him a communist. No doubt a mayor would be called the same by right-wingers if s/he tried it as well. I lived in a county in the late 1960s that passed out bricks of cheese and canned food to the poor cause it didn’t want to participate in the food stamp program. Things changed and food stamps work better. Conservatives tend to oppose help to the poor at any government level, the call for local solutions is their smokescreen

Local action is always to be preferred. But local officials are more easily controled by special interests favoring the wealthy, requiring similar interests favoring the poor which have comparatively fewer resources to have to lobby in 50 states. In general, it’s easier for the less powerful to lobby in DC. In another area, civil rights, the same formula prevailed as well, hence federal civil and voting rights laws.
 
maxparrish said:
Actually, I think it more accurate to say it is the price we pay for the "modern" and nominally democratic social-welfare state, and the elevation of the modern state into the primary authority and 'top-down' direction for all of society and individuals. Mind you, I am well aware of the "progressive" mindset, that our contemporary "wisdom" is on the right side of history. But there is no right side of history - in 100,200,300 years from now many of our latest social beliefs will be considered arcane if not absurd...superseded by "new" fads and shared "wisdom" on the "right side of history".

"What we decided" is the result of forces (both 'decided and undecided) that provide the many arcs to history from republics, into empire, into barbarian rule, into feudal Kingdoms, into Religious theocracy, and back again to Republics. And on the occasion that "we decided" it depended on who the "we" were.

But to the small degree that we have a choice, my "beef" is we are arcing away from some of the core aspirations of a more enlightened age - when the state was far less omnesent, when a society (rather than the State) of voluntary association and individual rights to ownership of one's labor and property were respected. Since the 1920s, the 'choices made' by and through the state has more often harmed, more than helped, the pursuit of happiness. It has created a huge dependency class, spiralling deficits, massive and misdirected investment in housing, and an increasingly polarized society...each member always demanding "MORE" from others to fund that member's special pleadings. It has engendered a society wherein character is "quaint" and children are taught more social duty more than personal honor and integrity.

To your question: I believe in classical liberalism and the related minimal state (e.g. Anarchy, State, And Utopia by Nozick, J.S. Mills). I would have likely done nothing for "poor people" or "the elderly" other than guarantee their rights. I would leave to the voluntary society; those who wish to help may. No one is forced to sacrifice to others for whom they did not accept responsibility for.

Only to the degree necessary to preserve a society to protect each of our autonomy against fraud or violence, would I support public programs. Obviously that requires some form of minimal schooling to 'enculturate' the young into a value system, and as a last resort perhaps some soup lines and a crust of bread for the temporarily impoverished.

Therein will begin the process of weaning the moochers (the majority of Americans) from the teat.
Click to expand...

“Soup lines and a crust of bread for the temporarily impoverished” says it all. Why not just have the wealthy toss some coins to beggars from their carriages as they pass them by, a la A Tale of Two Cities.

Yes, we will stumble towards different solutions as decades turn into centuries. Right now, all of the rich countries (and some of the poor ones) have decided that some form of the welfare state is the solution. Your presumed system basically makes moral theft and violence by those who are hungry. Dickens lesson, “crush mankind out of shape with similar hammers,” and it will respond the same was his warning about the lesson of the the French Revolution.

Not trying to sound too negative, but the Ayn Rand division of society into makers and takers is fascism’s blueprint. There are the worthy and the moochers. A bit like those communists who claimed that the working class had to lead because they were objectively more capable, more worthy. They too, would no doubt offer the deposed capitalists soup and a crust of bread after their “enculturation.”
 
James972 said:
so do you want this to be decided nationally for entire nation or on the state level to end the polarization and chance of losing rights that matter to you most??
Click to expand...

yes that would probalby be less extreme and cause change faster without leaving people to the mercy of sjw or bible thumping bastards for who knows how long
 
Logicman said:
How did liberals polarize America?

Basically by kicking God and his Word to the curb in favor of their subjective moral relativism.
Click to expand...

if god would like to complain hes welcome to make appearance and voice its opinion like a decent and rational being otherwise its jut you bitching on behalf of yourself in the name of your imaginary friend
 
blarg said:
if god would like to complain hes welcome to make appearance and voice its opinion like a decent and rational being otherwise its jut you bitching on behalf of yourself in the name of your imaginary friend
Click to expand...

God is imaginary but history began when his son arrived on earth?
 
James972 said:
God is imaginary but history began when his son arrived on earth?
Click to expand...

um that also seems imaginary unless do you just mean the letter switch and the number reset with ad?
 
blarg said:
um that also seems imaginary unless do you just mean the letter switch and the number reset with ad?
Click to expand...

actually its 2018 years after Christ, morality, and individual liberty were born. Did the liberal ever study history??
 
James972 said:
actually its 2018 years after Christ, morality, and individual liberty were born. Did the liberal ever study history??
Click to expand...

obviously you did and came to some very crazy conclusions
 
blarg said:
obviously you did and came to some very crazy conclusions
Click to expand...

of course if crazy the liberal would be able to say why they are crazy. Notice it does not even occur to a liberal to have a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom