Here we go again

@parados,

That's much better. If you'd care to pick one item from the list, we can discuss it.

@FreeDuck,

As I see it, America was founded to be the Home of the Brave and Land of the Free.
That is the reason that the Constitution was written
to curtail and limit the domestic power of government.
It was written to foster laissez faire free enterprize, libertarianism and Individualism.
To the extent that leftists try to tweak it, to DEVIATE from it,
curtailing that freedom to help the poor and rip off the middle class and the rich,
that is unjustified and against the basic fabric of what the Republic was established to do.

David

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

Well, I guess it was inevitable. Once again we are bickering with each other.
Once again we can not just argue points but we must show how our opponents
ideology is not just wrong but fundamentally evil.

It has been demonstrated that when someone 's core values are viably threatened,
or if he percieves them to be threatened, he gets a little nervous n maybe a bit emotional.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Thanks a lot sir.
i wish not to hurt your selection. it is your choice.
My choice is blind.
Give a befitting defeat to the ruling party and don't expect too much from the alternate one.

Regards
Rama

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Well, I don't have time to do the numbers by president, but the raw data is right there at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Click on the dinosaurs in the right column of the page, and you will find historical data on productivity, unemployment, the average wage, and inflation. Typically they go back to the end of World War II, thus covering the last 6 Republican presidents and the last 5 Democratic presidents.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

LOL.. Oh. .so you can't easily refute 8 of the 9 I listed.

So much for your 90% claim.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

North Korea didn't have nukes prior to having them. You didn't promote attacking North Korea in 2003, 2004, 2005.

Wasn't North Korea run by a dictator prior to them testing their first nuke? Or are you so blinded by ideology you don't see how your statement doesn't live up to reality?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You left deficit spending off your list Thomas but a good start for comparison.

1. Productivity
2. unemployment
3. average wage adjusted for inflation per family or household. This might not be a true comparison historically, one vs two wage earner family.
4. Inflation
5. Deficit spending
6. GDP growth (Another one to consider even though it is result of some of the above.)

0 Replies

@parados,

You probably already understand that I'm simply not going to spend the time debating 9 topics for you. This is a very common and standard, dishonest way of arguing - name a lot of separate points, and then demand that the opponent produce an argument for all of them. As I said, pick your best one - any one - and we'll talk.

1 Reply

@parados,

As I understand the history, we believed that they were living up to a treaty until they suddenly announced that they had nukes. Then it was too late. Certainly, there are many conditions under which we should attack a country like NK, rather than let WMD fall into evil and unstable hands, but, as I understand it, in this particular case, such a moment never arrived before they announced possession of nuclear weapons. I didn't say that attack should be the first response. My assertion was that you can get to that point, and that we did with Iraq. If the only way you're going to argue is to misstate my opinions, then it's not worth my time.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Actually, the Constitution was prompted by the failings of the Articles of Confederation, and what appeared to be the imminent failure of the Democratic experiment. The Articles preserved too much sovereignty to the various States. Each State decided for itself what policies to pursue, and so the nation floundered. The central government was completely at the mercy of the various States. The economy was in a shambles, and chaos threatened at every door.

The Constitution was designed to provide for (1) a strong central government with the power to dictate essential policies to the various States, and (2) to limit that central government's ability to infringe upon the States to govern themselves and to infringe as little as possible into the private lives of individual citizens. The Constitution rescued the nation from the disaster that was the result of too decentralized a governing system.

The genius of the Constitution is the fine balance that it guarantees between the interest of the central government in providing security, foreign policy, and economic policies to benefit the whole of society, and the rights of states to govern themselves and individuals left to pursue their own self-interest. The needs and expectations of the majority are balanced by the protection of the individual and minority opinions. The Founders were generally against the rise of political parties as divisive, and obstructionist to good government. Being human, it shouldn't surprise us that the Founders failed to recognize that opposing political philosophies were inevitable. In fact, though partisan politics far too often produces gridlock when decisive action is clearly needed, it is also another mechanism that protects us as citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

2 Replies

@Asherman,

Asherman wrote:

Actually, the Constitution was prompted by the failings of the Articles of Confederation, and what appeared to be the imminent failure of the Democratic experiment. The Articles preserved too much sovereignty to the various States. Each State decided for itself what policies to pursue, and so the nation floundered. The central government was completely at the mercy of the various States. The economy was in a shambles, and chaos threatened at every door.

The Constitution was designed to provide for (1) a strong central government with the power to dictate essential policies to the various States, and (2) to limit that central government's ability to infringe upon the States to govern themselves and to infringe as little as possible into the private lives of individual citizens. The Constitution rescued the nation from the disaster that was the result of too decentralized a governing system.

The genius of the Constitution is the fine balance that it guarantees between the interest of the central government in providing security, foreign policy, and economic policies to benefit the whole of society, and the rights of states to govern themselves and individuals left to pursue their own self-interest. The needs and expectations of the majority are balanced by the protection of the individual and minority opinions. The Founders were generally against the rise of political parties as divisive, and obstructionist to good government. Being human, it shouldn't surprise us that the Founders failed to recognize that opposing political philosophies were inevitable. In fact, though partisan politics far too often produces gridlock when decisive action is clearly needed, it is also another mechanism that protects us as citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

A nice statement of the history and philosophy of our Constitution. Welcome back.

0 Replies

@Asherman,

Quote:

Re: OmSigDAVID (Post 3391624)
Actually, the Constitution was prompted by the failings of the Articles of Confederation

True.

Quote:

and what appeared to be the imminent failure of the Democratic experiment.

I see no reason to consider it to have been an "experiment"; the citizens were
justifiably stingy in granting domestic power to government, knowing that
personal freedom is inversely proportional to the domestic power of government.

Quote:

The Constitution was designed to provide for
(1) a strong central government with the power to dictate essential policies
to the various States, and (2) to limit that central government's ability
to infringe upon the States to govern themselves and to infringe as little
as possible into the private lives of individual citizens.

Very true; yes.

Quote:

The genius of the Constitution is the fine balance that it guarantees between
the interest of the central government in providing security, foreign policy,
and economic policies to benefit the whole of society, and the rights of states
to govern themselves and individuals left to pursue their own self-interest.
The needs and expectations of the majority are balanced by the protection
of the individual and minority opinions.

Agreed

Quote:

In fact, though partisan politics far too often produces gridlock when
decisive action is clearly needed, it is also another mechanism that protects
us as citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes; that 's important.

David

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

You don't have much understanding of history then..

North Korea pulled out of the non proliferation treaty in 2003.
The restarted their nuclear reactor in 2003.
You might want to check the news reports from the time about why North Korea said they were doing so and what the US did to cut off shipments under the treaty Clinton had negotiated.

They declared in 2005 they had a nuke.
They tested a nuke in 2006.

You didn't say that attack should be the first response? Oh.. what was your statement then? When did you support anything other than an attack on Iraq?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

You probably already understand that I'm simply not going to spend the time debating 9 topics for you. This is a very common and standard, dishonest way of arguing - name a lot of separate points, and then demand that the opponent produce an argument for all of them. As I said, pick your best one - any one - and we'll talk.

Go back and read YOUR statement

Quote:

How absolutely telling that the liberal posters here all talk about the disastrous results of Republican rule and no one gives a single example. This is precisely what I'd expect of you. I would bet that 90% of your accusations wouldn't stand up under calm, objective scrutiny.

Rather than refuting ANY of my list, you demanded I pick ONE to discuss. 1 of 9 is NOT 90%.

Since you won't discuss without me picking one then I pick number 2.
Discuss with your "calm, objective" scrutiny. That means you need to provide sources that are objective to back you up. My statement only has to stand up to YOUR claim it wouldn't then we can move on to the next one.

By the way. It looks like I have already won on the Korea statement. Your statement is what didn't hold up under scrutiny.

2 Replies

@parados,

sorry for my interrption.
i always make my poltical views with American links which mirrors my views.
But my views are critical/rational but not congenial for the audience4 here in A2K
As a person who wish to die peacefully without regrets, iexpect all the participants here to have my life, if not more
Able 2 Know is to enthuse the new members and make them as thinkers.

0 Replies

@parados,

I'm not an expert on the history of this, but, if there was a moment when we were reasonably sure that they were developing nukes, we should have asked them a number of times to stop, tried to use the UN, and, if all failed, threatened to invade a few times and then actually invaded. If you're trying to make some case that my beliefs about this are inconsistent, I sure don't see how.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
You probably already understand that I'm simply not going to spend the time debating 9 topics for you. This is a very common and standard, dishonest way of arguing - name a lot of separate points, and then demand that the opponent produce an argument for all of them. As I said, pick your best one - any one - and we'll talk.
Go back and read YOUR statement

Quote:
How absolutely telling that the liberal posters here all talk about the disastrous results of Republican rule and no one gives a single example. This is precisely what I'd expect of you. I would bet that 90% of your accusations wouldn't stand up under calm, objective scrutiny.

Rather than refuting ANY of my list, you demanded I pick ONE to discuss. 1 of 9 is NOT 90%.

Since you won't discuss without me picking one then I pick number 2.
Discuss with your "calm, objective" scrutiny. That means you need to provide sources that are objective to back you up. My statement only has to stand up to YOUR claim it wouldn't then we can move on to the next one......

I said I suspected that 90% of explicit accusations, should any be made, wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and I still believe it. I didn't say that I personally would waste hours on the board disproving anything anyone said. No. 2 is:

"2. The politicization of the hiring and firing in the Justice Department"

For this particular assertion, my response will probably be that it makes no difference if true, because it's neither criminal nor unusual. Let me think about it and then I'll respond.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Once again we can not just argue points but we must show how our opponents ideology is not just wrong but fundamentally evil.

Isn't your entire initial post an example of what you are complaining about?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

What you "believe" and what you can back up with facts are 2 separate things.

What precisely does calm, objective scrutiny mean to you? To me, it means you have to provide some facts that are objective and can be substantiated.

Your statements about Korea and how you didn't know they were working on nukes when the media was filled with statements by the administration, the 6 party talks that failed, the IAEA reports to the UN, the restarting of the reactors, the threats from the adminstration, and the refusal by the Bush administration to have bi-lateral talks. I find it hard to believe you had no clue that Korea was working toward a nuclear device before they tested one.

While it is entirely possible you were not aware of Korea's actions in spite of all the media coverage it puts a big hole in your argument about your ability to provide calm, objective scrutiny on any topic that was in the news.

Your argument that the politicization was not unusual flies in the face of the investigations by the DoJ itself. While it may not have risen to criminal charges this is what the US Justice department said about it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf

Quote:

C. Analysis
Based on our investigation, we concluded that Goodling and
Nowacki improperly used political or ideological affiliations when
assessing waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys in at least three
cases, which violated Department policy and federal law, and also
constituted misconduct.

Quote:

The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan
Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice
policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in
soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs, which are Schedule A career
positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence
demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were
systematic in nature. The evidence demonstrates further that Goodling
violated Department policy and federal law by considering political or
ideological affiliations in selecting candidates for the BIA.

Quote:

In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and
Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and
Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological
affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions
protected by the civil service laws.

Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it
also caused significant delays in appointing IJs.

Quote:

In addition, we concluded that EOUSA Deputy Director John
Nowacki committed misconduct by drafting a proposed Department
response to a media inquiry which he knew was inaccurate.

The report cites several instances where Goodling and others gave "inaccurate" testimony. We may yet see criminal charges before this is over.

I'm unclear why your 'calm, objective scrutiny' requires you to only "think about it' before you provide evidence. I would have said, let me research it if I was not informed on the topic. You are free to disagree with the DoJ report but I wouldn't call disagreeing with them to be calm, objective scrutiny since they took the time to interview all involved.

0 Replies

Here we go again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know