Glenn Beck reads a letter from a patriot

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh, and P&N is not on the 'extreme liberal' side in any way, shape, or form. It's more libertarian than anything..

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::

Edited due to format distortion caused by excessive emoticons

Fern
P&N Moderator

 

[eits]

wow, he didn't cry?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Anybody want to guess where the US economy would be right now if the Federal government had done nothing to stop the collapse of the financial markets?

I do not understand people who want an economic depression.

Umm... it's called how life works. When things start failing, we pick up the pieces and move on. Not tender our wounds, be stubborn and do everything possible to preserve everything the way it already was. Does no one understand, that whatever helped push us toward failure, is still here thanks to our government doing everything it can to ensure that is the case?

Free-market economies work best when they are given the chance to be free. As many have said, too big to fail... but that was countered with one senator - too big to fail, too big to exist.
President Ford - A government large enough to provide you anything, is one large enough to take from you everything. Although this at a time when the government was already starting to excessively grow unchecked.

I don't want a recession, but I don't think we are getting the chance to really dodge one either. All we are doing right now is prolonging the hurt. Get it over with, get some new corporations who will probably be better, learn from our mistakes and grow from it. Not drag our feet, crying all the way and hoping we can return to exactly what we had. Where's the goal of change when all we want is to go back to what we had?


It's funny how that always works too. Nobody ever complains until the problems really start coming in. And then, it's so easy to drop things just so we can try and bail ourselves out.

When the problems roll in, it seems easy for Americans to turn a blind eye toward the Constitution and clamor for the supposedly "easy fix", when said fix is completely against everything we Americans had historically ever stood for. Nobody ever wants to deal with the pain immediately and would rather make sweeping government changes in hopes that we can stay in a peaceful time.
Such a wonderful life if that's how we always want to live it. Me? Sorry. Gives me a depression over grand social programs wasting more of our money and making the next generation even more pussified."

You need to read about the 1929 depression before you choose between the resultant social, economic, and political upheaval and "grand social programs wasting more of our money and making the next generation even more pussified".

BTW in a depression you will probably loose your job and will not have any money.

I

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm reading (and not at Repub blogs sites etc) that those sections are substantial and important, not minor details.

I'm also hearing that because of these blank sections, the CBO can't do a cost estimate.

IMO, cost estimates for an issue such as this are pretty damned important.

Delivering a bill for debate, with substantial blanks and no cost estimates, looks like "rushing" to me. The only reason I can think of to proceeed in this unusual way (substantial blanks and no cost estimates) is rushing.

To debate "UHC or no?" in the general way with vague platitudes that's been done so long is pretty meaningless IMO. The important part is in the details. They also need significant amounts of time to analyze and ciost estimates. They have neither at this point, so they cannot adequately debate the bill yet.

BTW: I haven't forgotten the recommendation from Tom Daschle that to get this passed in Congress they need to ram it through and not let poeple get into the details or it'll be bogged like Hillarycare back in the 90's.

Fern

American health care is the most complex system. Period. In four months with their time spent with GM etc, legislators have written 650 pages which will effectively redefine all of American health care for all time.

I understand that you want government health care. So how much input from physicians, nurses, etc has there been? Who has been consulted and at what depth? How many hundreds of opinions outside of DC have been sought and debated in earnest?

I have no doubt that we will have UHC before too long, but politicians make poor physicians and it takes quite some effort to understand the health care system. As usual the government will probably legislate something it can barely grasp.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

So you ignore their stated target date 4 months away, but base your idea that a bill is being rushed on your imagined motives for committee members.

Uhmm.... okay.

Slow down and read a bit, the following is in my post above:

Delivering a bill for debate, with substantial blanks and no cost estimates, looks like "rushing" to me. The only reason I can think of to proceeed in this unusual way (substantial blanks and no cost estimates) is rushing.

And yes, suggestions by Daschle and others to do exactly that only serve to raise suspicions Other important bill have been rushed too, voted on by Congressperson who didn't even have time to read them - and Obama going back on his campaign promise to have them posted for at least days before passage etc. Yeah, silly me, how could I imagine they might try to rush this too?

(Edit: We're getting into a diversion here - the point was I disagreed you with you already having adequate debate, and I still disagree with you for the reasons raised above)

Fern

Right, I read exactly what you wrote. You decided, based on insanely limited information, that you know the motives of committee members and have decided they are rushing things. For some inexplicable reason you have taken committee action, one of the very first steps in any legislative process, as some sort of proof of what you think, and you do it over the explicit statements of the parties involved. Your proof of precedent is that Obama said he would leave bills up for several days before voting but only left a previous one up for one. That's mighty thin.

This simply isn't very good reasoning on your part.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: destrekor
As many have said, too big to fail... but that was countered with one senator - too big to fail, too big to exist.

As a guy who has had that quote in my sig (see below) and strongly supports the statement by Sen. Saunders (a socialist, by the way, glad to see you are with him), I'd like to suggest to you that you might not understand the situation - it appears the phrase 'systemic risk' means nothing to you, and it appears that the expert opinions from top economists - whether Bernake or Krugman or many others - saying that the dangers were large and bailouts of some sort needed and justified is lost on you.

On the quote itself, what Sen. Saunders is saying is not that 'too big to fail' isn't true, and we should let the system crash; he's saying that because it IS true, and we were forced to bial them out, we need to change the system to no longer allow institutions to become so large they are too big to fail, they have to somehow be kept smaller.

Not surprisingly, Republicans desperate to find something to attack Obama for and clinging to their ideology that has worked so well for us, they attack the big spending needed.

Funny, though, many top economists are also saying the real issue is the spending being *too little*, and they actually have a rational case, unlike the armchair economists whose heads are exploding just because the numbers are large and not listening to any of the facts on the right policy.

I've previously made a simple point in comparing how the lesson of WWII economics could be said to show that they can be right, about massive government spending being the only thing that gets the economy restarted from that sort of mess, but how the facts of how that spending in WWII helping the economy are just ignored by the ideologues because they don't like them.

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

There's a short-term need to keep the economy functioning and a long-term need to fix systemic problems.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm reading (and not at Repub blogs sites etc) that those sections are substantial and important, not minor details.

I'm also hearing that because of these blank sections, the CBO can't do a cost estimate.

IMO, cost estimates for an issue such as this are pretty damned important.

Delivering a bill for debate, with substantial blanks and no cost estimates, looks like "rushing" to me. The only reason I can think of to proceeed in this unusual way (substantial blanks and no cost estimates) is rushing.

To debate "UHC or no?" in the general way with vague platitudes that's been done so long is pretty meaningless IMO. The important part is in the details. They also need significant amounts of time to analyze and ciost estimates. They have neither at this point, so they cannot adequately debate the bill yet.

BTW: I haven't forgotten the recommendation from Tom Daschle that to get this passed in Congress they need to ram it through and not let poeple get into the details or it'll be bogged like Hillarycare back in the 90's.

Fern

American health care is the most complex system. Period. In four months with their time spent with GM etc, legislators have written 650 pages which will effectively redefine all of American health care for all time.

I understand that you want government health care. So how much input from physicians, nurses, etc has there been? Who has been consulted and at what depth? How many hundreds of opinions outside of DC have been sought and debated in earnest?

I have no doubt that we will have UHC before too long, but politicians make poor physicians and it takes quite some effort to understand the health care system. As usual the government will probably legislate something it can barely grasp.

I think the problem is we're trying to solve a problem but in the process going down the wrong fork in the road.

The answer isn't government health care, it's public heal care. Right now it's only barely considered public, you rarely get a choice of what health insurance you can get and thus what providers. The answer needs to be completely public, because consumer choices thus mean all the insurance companies are fighting for your dollar.
Look at the auto insurance industry. How much have prices come down as more insurance companies look for your business. Because the auto insurance industry is completely public, with I think only the slightest of government intervention, if any, honestly don't know about that.

However, if you have corporations no longer forcing specific health insurance providers, every individual will have to look to the insurance companies in the same way they look for auto insurance. Cost, coverage, and providers, will be completely up to the consumer.

I don't get what the obsession is with handing more control to the government. It hasn't fixed a single problem in our history, and has opened up the road for more problems.
And the fact that we American citizens don't even get a damn say in this upsets the hell out of me, not that it would matter. With the way our country votes on shit like this, it'd probably be a large majority vote in favor of approving UHC.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

There's a short-term need to keep the economy functioning and a long-term need to fix systemic problems.

And there's a tree in my front yard. You mind elaborating?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

There's a short-term need to keep the economy functioning and a long-term need to fix systemic problems.

And there's a tree in my front yard. You mind elaborating?

You first. What are you talking about the big stick (I assume you mean TR, and that was about foreign policy, not conomics), I can't tell what you are trying to say yet.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: destrekor
...the government. It hasn't fixed a single problem in our history

That massive level of ignorance and ideology will only bring false conclusions about policy.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

There's a short-term need to keep the economy functioning and a long-term need to fix systemic problems.

And there's a tree in my front yard. You mind elaborating?

You first. What are you talking about the big stick (I assume you mean TR, and that was about foreign policy, not conomics), I can't tell what you are trying to say yet.

That's only fair. I'm saying why don't we (the gov't.) break these companies up into smaller companies rather than taking a major stake in them?

The big stick, as I understand it, was also TDR's weapon of choice for trust-busting.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: destrekor
...the government. It hasn't fixed a single problem in our history

That massive level of ignorance and ideology will only bring false conclusions about policy.

Please, expand upon that instead of simply calling out ignorance...

Some government social programs have made an impact, but with massive financial waste and far from solving any problems. Hell, the original intentions of the original welfare program (New York) were decently conceived but it failed to make the necessary impact that they were aiming for. Far better policies can fix social problems than simply throwing government money at people. Throw the money into expanding existing policy and reform, not creating programs to give government money directly to citizens. It's a last ditch effort because there is not a single drop of actual thought.

It's on you to somehow prove me wrong by saying the government has fixed anything through social programs.

 

[DealMonkey]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would consider the author a "patriot." What a whiny, know-it-all, non-stop complainer. Here's a hint lady: stop writing stupid letters and go do something meaningful to change things. Nobody except the rodeo clown prince himself, Glenn Beck, gives two craps what you think.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: destrekor
...the government. It hasn't fixed a single problem in our history

That massive level of ignorance and ideology will only bring false conclusions about policy.

Please, expand upon that instead of simply calling out ignorance...

Some government social programs have made an impact, but with massive financial waste and far from solving any problems. Hell, the original intentions of the original welfare program (New York) were decently conceived but it failed to make the necessary impact that they were aiming for. Far better policies can fix social problems than simply throwing government money at people. Throw the money into expanding existing policy and reform, not creating programs to give government money directly to citizens. It's a last ditch effort because there is not a single drop of actual thought.

It's on you to somehow prove me wrong by saying the government has fixed anything through social programs.

Sometimes, there are differences in views that are so large, you can't resolve them with simple posts.

Imagine someone posting 'Science has never proven anything' (which we'd both disagree with). Where would you start?

You might be tempted to throw out examples - say, the law of gravity, putting a man on the moon showing it must have something right - but it's not as if the person doesn't know about those things - so it' snot an issue of their saying "oh, gravity, that's news, I guess you're right". They already know about it - - and somehow have such a different view on things, that you're just going to get bogged down between your view and theirs.

This next might not be the best example, but I just read that nearly 28% of South African men admit haivng committed rape. They say it's a 'cultural thing' deeply embedded from a young age. If one of them were in this forum, I might say all day how I think it's wrong, but it's not going to be easy in a few posts to reach any agreement.

That's sort of how I see your statement. It's not as you are unaware of public schools, the FBI, the FAA, Social Security, or thousands of other programs that do good.

You just have some very different view of the programs that I don't see how we're going to resolve in a discussion. I see a kitten and say "cute", you see it and say "tasty", we're not going to agree witha couple posts. That's why I'm not listing examples to prove my point - there's a great list in a book appendix by James Carville, "Had Enough?", with pages of effective programs - but how are we going to agree, if you don't already look at the same programs and recognize the good they do that I do?

I mean, if you recognized most programs as working and had a specific one you don't like, we would have enough common understanding to discuss that.

It's not easy to 'prove' things about welfare. I can point you to studies on its effects, but are you going to read them, and are you going to agreee with anything they say?

I responded the way I did to try to make clear that we have very different views on what it means for a government program to do good, based on your statement that none do.

You soften it a bit, but that you said it at all tells me you kind of meant it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: inspire

Well, then why nationalize the companies, Craig? If even partly? Why not pick up TDR's big stick and lay down some beatings?

There's a short-term need to keep the economy functioning and a long-term need to fix systemic problems.

And there's a tree in my front yard. You mind elaborating?

You first. What are you talking about the big stick (I assume you mean TR, and that was about foreign policy, not conomics), I can't tell what you are trying to say yet.

That's only fair. I'm saying why don't we (the gov't.) break these companies up into smaller companies rather than taking a major stake in them?

I can try to rephrase my first post - their position is that the system was at risk of collapse that needed crisis stabilization - the money injections - and the systemic changes wouldn't stabilize the system. Those are longer-term changes to the system.

There's room to disagree with whether they are correct, but that's their position, and it's logical.

There's a 'let them all fail crowd, but there's no saying they might not be wrong, advocating disaster, unwittingly.

If you haven't seen it yet, I'd suggest you watch this video.

It's 60 Minutes interviewing Ben Bernanke in his first media interview, and I think it say sa lot about 'where he's coming from' on the bailouts.

The big stick, as I understand it, was also TDR's weapon of choice for trust-busting.

I hadn't heard that use, it sounds reasonable.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would consider the author a "patriot." What a whiny, know-it-all, non-stop complainer. Here's a hint lady: stop writing stupid letters and go do something meaningful to change things. Nobody except the rodeo clown prince himself, Glenn Beck, gives two craps what you think.

eh?
I already explained how she's a patriot: she's doing what she thinks is a reasonable approach to try and get this country back on track with the Constitution and the original ideals for government based on the writings and mumblings of many figureheads, including the Founding Fathers and their successors in government.

One person often has trouble changing the way government works, and here's a hint: writing letters that many will see/hear is one of the best methods to start a grassroots movement. Other methods are protests, which can largely be ineffective since the general public looks to them with a scornful eye.

Nobody gives a crap what she thinks? Many who think the government is too large would humbly disagree with that statement. The only way to hope such changes can occur is to inspire the general public to have less apathetic voting procedures and actually invest time and research into candidates and what they stand for. Most people don't look at anything other than commercials, and tend to describe their vote as one for "the lesser of two evils". Most people have little respect for politicians, but we should have even less respect for ourselves since we give less-funded candidates essentially no chance and leave the spot open for individuals who we may agree with three ideals but still greatly disapprove of many of their congressional votes. We get nothing accomplished if we continue voting in such a manner.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: destrekor

I already explained how she's a patriot: she's doing what she thinks is a reasonable approach to try and get this country back on track with the Constitution and the original ideals for government based on the writings and mumblings of many figureheads, including the Founding Fathers and their successors in government.

The founding fathers were a bunch of slave owning drunks with flaws like everyone else.

Holding this religious reverence for a very dated and sometimes obscurely worded document that was highly controversial even back then as immutable law is foolish, dogmatic sentimentalism.

Self-described patriots are usually the most ignorant of our history besides a few "liberty" catchphrases they tear up about.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: destrekor

I already explained how she's a patriot: she's doing what she thinks is a reasonable approach to try and get this country back on track with the Constitution and the original ideals for government based on the writings and mumblings of many figureheads, including the Founding Fathers and their successors in government.

The founding fathers were a bunch of slave owning drunks with flaws like everyone else.

Holding this religious reverence for a very dated and sometimes obscurely worded document that was highly controversial even back then as immutable law is foolish, dogmatic sentimentalism.

Self-described patriots are usually the most ignorant of our history besides a few "liberty" catchphrases they tear up about.

I'd say get out of this country if one doesn't want to live in a government as described by the Constitution, and would rather change it to a style of government feared by those who wrote the Constitution. It was controversial because it was obscure in some fronts, and many feared the freedoms of power in the original document would be greatly abused by the government as time passed. They wrote the first ten Amendments in an attempt to solve the original issues left open in the original document, and Amendment 10 was supposed to be the big winner with protecting the states from an authoritarian Federal government.
Little did they predict the foolishness of state representatives simply handing over all the powers rightfully given to the states.

They may have been human at a time when it still wasn't illegal to relish freedom, but they were wise when it came to governance. The fact they came through all odds and crafted the country the way they had. Extremely educated and well versed, far greater politicians than we've seen in a long time. They actually cared about maintaining extreme amounts of freedom and would turn over in their grave to see how much we've fucked up on that amazing vision. Nearly everything wrong was specifically mentioned as terrible fears by quite a few of our first politicians. Just because the times are different, and there are different concepts to handling issues, government truly doesn't change. Anyone who has put any time into sociological and philosophical aspects of governance would see the fact that the human aspect of government does not change over time.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: destrekor

I already explained how she's a patriot: she's doing what she thinks is a reasonable approach to try and get this country back on track with the Constitution and the original ideals for government based on the writings and mumblings of many figureheads, including the Founding Fathers and their successors in government.

The founding fathers were a bunch of slave owning drunks with flaws like everyone else.

Holding this religious reverence for a very dated and sometimes obscurely worded document that was highly controversial even back then as immutable law is foolish, dogmatic sentimentalism.

Self-described patriots are usually the most ignorant of our history besides a few "liberty" catchphrases they tear up about.

I'd say get out of this country if one doesn't want to live in a government as described by the Constitution, and would rather change it to a style of government feared by those who wrote the Constitution. It was controversial because it was obscure in some fronts, and many feared the freedoms of power in the original document would be greatly abused by the government as time passed. They wrote the first ten Amendments in an attempt to solve the original issues left open in the original document, and Amendment 10 was supposed to be the big winner with protecting the states from an authoritarian Federal government.
Little did they predict the foolishness of state representatives simply handing over all the powers rightfully given to the states.

They may have been human at a time when it still wasn't illegal to relish freedom, but they were wise when it came to governance. The fact they came through all odds and crafted the country the way they had. Extremely educated and well versed, far greater politicians than we've seen in a long time. They actually cared about maintaining extreme amounts of freedom and would turn over in their grave to see how much we've fucked up on that amazing vision. Nearly everything wrong was specifically mentioned as terrible fears by quite a few of our first politicians. Just because the times are different, and there are different concepts to handling issues, government truly doesn't change. Anyone who has put any time into sociological and philosophical aspects of governance would see the fact that the human aspect of government does not change over time.

The Federalists lost during the founding of our country, so did the south and the argument for greater states rights over a centralized state, get over it if you are going to be so dogmatic in your strict constitutionalist routine we are now a superpower instead of a place where people crap in the woods with the bears and fend for ourselves. And much better off for it.

 

[Phokus]

Something tells me this 'patriot' would be crying like a little bitch if the government let the banks fail, liquidity dried up, and global economic Armageddon ensued. "Waaahhhhh, why did Barack HUSSEIN Obama let this happened? It's great depression version 2.0 again!!!!!oneoneone"

Thank god most people aren't like this nutjob.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: destrekor

I already explained how she's a patriot: she's doing what she thinks is a reasonable approach to try and get this country back on track with the Constitution and the original ideals for government based on the writings and mumblings of many figureheads, including the Founding Fathers and their successors in government.

The founding fathers were a bunch of slave owning drunks with flaws like everyone else.

Holding this religious reverence for a very dated and sometimes obscurely worded document that was highly controversial even back then as immutable law is foolish, dogmatic sentimentalism.

Self-described patriots are usually the most ignorant of our history besides a few "liberty" catchphrases they tear up about.

I'd say get out of this country if one doesn't want to live in a government as described by the Constitution, and would rather change it to a style of government feared by those who wrote the Constitution. It was controversial because it was obscure in some fronts, and many feared the freedoms of power in the original document would be greatly abused by the government as time passed. They wrote the first ten Amendments in an attempt to solve the original issues left open in the original document, and Amendment 10 was supposed to be the big winner with protecting the states from an authoritarian Federal government.
Little did they predict the foolishness of state representatives simply handing over all the powers rightfully given to the states.

They may have been human at a time when it still wasn't illegal to relish freedom, but they were wise when it came to governance. The fact they came through all odds and crafted the country the way they had. Extremely educated and well versed, far greater politicians than we've seen in a long time. They actually cared about maintaining extreme amounts of freedom and would turn over in their grave to see how much we've fucked up on that amazing vision. Nearly everything wrong was specifically mentioned as terrible fears by quite a few of our first politicians. Just because the times are different, and there are different concepts to handling issues, government truly doesn't change. Anyone who has put any time into sociological and philosophical aspects of governance would see the fact that the human aspect of government does not change over time.

The Federalists lost during the founding of our country, so did the south and the argument for greater states rights over a centralized state, get over it if you are going to be so dogmatic in your strict constitutionalist routine we are now a superpower instead of a place where people crap in the woods with the bears and fend for ourselves. And much better off for it.

Exactly, it's very easy to cry about 'freedom' when living in a society where you don't have globalization, huge populations of people, and complex financial institutions. What worked back in the the seventeen hundreds isn't necessarily applicable today.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

The Federalists lost during the founding of our country, so did the south and the argument for greater states rights over a centralized state, get over it if you are going to be so dogmatic in your strict constitutionalist routine we are now a superpower instead of a place where people crap in the woods with the bears and fend for ourselves. And much better off for it.

Exactly, it's very easy to cry about 'freedom' when living in a society where you don't have globalization, huge populations of people, and complex financial institutions. What worked back in the the seventeen hundreds isn't necessarily applicable today.

Guys, I fundamentally agree with you but you're simply wrong about the founding of our country.

The Federalists WON during the founding of our country, they were the ones arguing for the Constitution vs. either continuing the Articles of Confederation or doing something else. The Anti-Federalists were the ones arguing for greater state autonomy... and they lost.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

The Federalists lost during the founding of our country, so did the south and the argument for greater states rights over a centralized state, get over it if you are going to be so dogmatic in your strict constitutionalist routine we are now a superpower instead of a place where people crap in the woods with the bears and fend for ourselves. And much better off for it.

Exactly, it's very easy to cry about 'freedom' when living in a society where you don't have globalization, huge populations of people, and complex financial institutions. What worked back in the the seventeen hundreds isn't necessarily applicable today.

Guys, I fundamentally agree with you but you're simply wrong about the founding of our country.

The Federalists WON during the founding of our country, they were the ones arguing for the Constitution vs. either continuing the Articles of Confederation or doing something else. The Anti-Federalists were the ones arguing for greater state autonomy... and they lost.

Actually i think theredunderurbed just mixed up federalist and anti-federalist up, i didn't catch that.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

The Federalists lost during the founding of our country, so did the south and the argument for greater states rights over a centralized state, get over it if you are going to be so dogmatic in your strict constitutionalist routine we are now a superpower instead of a place where people crap in the woods with the bears and fend for ourselves. And much better off for it.

Exactly, it's very easy to cry about 'freedom' when living in a society where you don't have globalization, huge populations of people, and complex financial institutions. What worked back in the the seventeen hundreds isn't necessarily applicable today.

Guys, I fundamentally agree with you but you're simply wrong about the founding of our country.

The Federalists WON during the founding of our country, they were the ones arguing for the Constitution vs. either continuing the Articles of Confederation or doing something else. The Anti-Federalists were the ones arguing for greater state autonomy... and they lost.

That, and technically they were Statists, not simply Anti-Federalists, and the statists weren't against a properly written Constitution, unless not all the statists were the same. Ben Franklin highly valued the concept of the Constitution, however his goals were indeed greater state autonomy and not a large Federal government. His chief views were a large central government would lead to corruption and escalation of powers, coupled with a loss of the notion of guaranteed freedoms of civilization. It was his arguments, along with the other Statists, that led to quite the debate and compromise right in the middle ground, with relative autonomy for states but a Federal government with allowance of some growth. The 10th Amendment was also authorized out of heated debates of the Statist ideals, and was written to guarantee a large amount of state autonomy. However, it goes without saying that that amendment cannot protect the states when the state representatives agree to vote away chunks of that autonomy. Thankfully the states are still granted a good deal of autonomy but not nearly as much as they should still have.

as for the other recent comments in this thread, I'll get to them tomorrow. I don't care to argue these philosophies when the points don't get through to anyone, as everyone would rather hold onto their beliefs that the system is working and gladly say screw the Constitution with its "apparent" flaws. Globalization and technology doesn't require a country to completely turn away from its ideals. The problem is in altering policy to help control or follow human behavior, not altering government. Everyone is out for quick "easy" fixes that just have no bearing on the long term. Everyone is afraid of a little pain in the immediate future, whereas enduring that and coming up with more sound solutions just doesn't fit the bill of "easy" and politicians love appealing to voters with immediate fixes for re-election. The exact problem statists feared, the human quest for power never works in favor of a country.