From Goldwater To Dubya-what A Sad, Long Fall

[snapcat]

Gentlemen, do we need a time out in this thread, too?

 

[Homoaffectional]

Gentlemen, do we need a time out in this thread, too?

Just let us know if you want us to move it to PM or somesuch. I'd be happy to. I don't see anything overly objectionable, but if you believe it so, please give us a bit of a warning before doing anything to it, please...

 

[maltese]

Gentlemen, do we need a time out in this thread, too?

Nah, I'll just refrain from calling people a Nazis or a racist, or calling their posts bullshit, or calling them a liar, or saying they have a deluded reality, or making comments about their sexual habits...

Oh, wait. I've already refrained from those things. Must not be any reason for a timeout, because surely they've not come from anywhere else.

 

[maltese]

I hear that ninety-five percent of what's posted is bullshit. Of course, I can't prove that figure. Oh, the days of verifiable citations! Are they gone forever?

You've posted a lot, but 95% seems a high figure. Surely there have been more than 7,000 total posts in this forum?

As to your specific concern regarding calling someone a Nazi (or any variants of the term), I think that's been overtaken by events. You see, maltese, senior Republican leaders have taken a shine to "Islamofascists" and dredging up notions of WWII in our valiant war in Iraq, so that genie is out of the bottle -- unless, that is, you feel only Republicans have special dispensation for using those terms.

Nonsense, my friend! You leftists are always so slow to get these things. The dispensation is universal, for all freedom loving Americans, but only applies to usages describing them bloody foreign types. You too, may call foreign enemies Islamofascists, but only those with a stated desire to kill American civilians, as well as the occassional French politician. Other usages are still fully proscribed by an appropriate invocation of Godwin's law.

 

[smelter]

The dispensation is universal, for all freedom loving Americans, but only applies to usages describing them bloody foreign types. You too, may call foreign enemies Islamofascists, but only those with a stated desire to kill American civilians, as well as the occassional French politician. Other usages are still fully proscribed by an appropriate invocation of Godwin's law.

If they desire to kill French politicians, we should secretly arm them like Reagan did with the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters.

 

[snapcat]

I hear that ninety-five percent of what's posted is bullshit. Of course, I can't prove that figure. Oh, the days of verifiable citations! Are they gone forever?

​

Yes, I fear the days of verifiable citations are a thing of the past, and I think this forum will suffer for it.

Both springboksfan and I campained to include cites as a requirement for posts which link to purported news stories. The reason was fairly simple; to ensure that people didn't "doctor" news reports to say whatever thay wanted.

But the masses have spoken, and the masses would prefer to chat without having to bother with cites. In other words, you can post whatever you want, whenever you want, and you don't have to back it up.

I fear that CE&P will lose it's identity as a site for legitimate debate, and will soon become another chat room. And when the people who came here for debate grow tired of that I fear that even the chat might become a bit droll.

Irrespective of your political leanings, I have fought as hard as I can to ensure that CE&P remains a zone for legitimate debate, with room for people on the left, right, and the middle to express their views.

If you feel strongly about protecting the discourse of debate by requiring citations, then I urge you to scroll to the bottom of this page, where you'll see the "contact us" button. Click on that and you can voice your opinion.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Nonsense, my friend! You leftists are always so slow to get these things.

And rightists are slow to issue denials about what I said earlier; that you would vote Republican regardless of how we post in our message boards, probably becuz you know that 'we leftists' are onto you.

BTW, the fact that you won't address that is part of the reason why I tend to vote left. And aren't intimidated in the slightest when you try to blame me for your habit of doing the opposite...

 

[beekman001]

love how conservatives ignore something called an Amendment...the founding fathers wanted to make it difficult to change the constitution but they knew it might be necessary...therefore they gave us the ability to amend it. so you are dead wrong...the founding fathers were the ones who thought it shouldn't stand still.

and oh...i know this doesn't affect you but since i'm half black, i'm glad the constitution didn't stand still at leaving me at being 3/5ths of a person. just saying.

You're misreading Kulindahr's post. He was not saying that the document that is the constitution doesnt or shouldnt change. However the meaning of any given part of the constitution is pretty much set in stone.

Take the 4th Amendment for example..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means the same thing today as it did more than 200 years ago. Even though the nature of how searches are conducted has changed drastically the standard of reasonableness derived from common law cannot fundamentally be changed. Even in some fictional future where we've continued this war on terror for 30 years or more, a suggestion that the reasonableness of a search or seizure is different than in revolutionary times would be laughed out of court by a true judical conservative.

 

[james1200]

Yes, I fear the days of verifiable citations are a thing of the past, and I think this forum will suffer for it.

Both springboksfan and I campained to include cites as a requirement for posts which link to purported news stories. The reason was fairly simple; to ensure that people didn't "doctor" news reports to say whatever thay wanted.

But the masses have spoken, and the masses would prefer to chat without having to bother with cites. In other words, you can post whatever you want, whenever you want, and you don't have to back it up.

I fear that CE&P will lose it's identity as a site for legitimate debate, and will soon become another chat room. And when the people who came here for debate grow tired of that I fear that even the chat might become a bit droll.

Irrespective of your political leanings, I have fought as hard as I can to ensure that CE&P remains a zone for legitimate debate, with room for people on the left, right, and the middle to express their views.

If you feel strongly about protecting the discourse of debate by requiring citations, then I urge you to scroll to the bottom of this page, where you'll see the "contact us" button. Click on that and you can voice your opinion.

i didn't know there was a debate over this but i think anyone who quotes a statistic should still cite it if they wanna be taken seriously, usually...but some of the stuff on here is obviously hyperbole and intelligent people know that and don't take it as gospel...i mean, i know when homo ( ) says 95% of republicans are racist, he's exagerrating to make a legit point about that party and people do that in political debate all the time...he's just saying they as a party have a problem with race.

(plus we all know the figures are closer to 80%).

 

[Kulindahr]

That is why SCOTUS, the only body that actively maintains the Constitution's relevance, has to embrace at least the minimal of the living constitution doctrine (Scalia and to some extent Thomas has and they are so-called 'original intentionalists'), which is rooted in the basis of the amending process. Perhaps Kulindahr will follow-up his criticism in this light.

By adjusting or reinterpreting the Constitution in line with the times, or, as has been historically more common, in line with the accumulated laws passed by Congress, SCOTUS has in fact betrayed the Constitution's basic purpose. The essential goal of the Constitution is not to provide a framework for government, but to limit it to the least possible government. Every accomodation to the times that has been made along the way has only moved us closer to the sort of tyranny the Founders fought a war to escape: We now have law made without vote, by people never elected; we have arbitrary police power, the worst of which is the trend toward that exercise of power which brought the French Revolution to its peak of bloodiness, "community safety" or "public safety".
As I said before, opening the Constitution to re-interpretation is an invitation to whoever can stack the court to change the country into something it was never meant to be -- as we are seeing with Bush, who if he could just appoint another justice or two would saddle us all with a moralistic pseudo-religious regime. He has on occasion claimed the heritage of FDR; in this he is right: that he also wishes to stack the Court to get it to do what he wants, rather than what is right.
SCOTUS is appointed -- now recall that perhaps the greatest horrors of the twentieth century were brought to Western civilization by someone legitimately appointed, who claimed the good of the country and public safety as his justification for doing away with every traditional right. Of course I mean Adolf Hitler, the favorite evil for comparing our politicians to. I don't think we've seen anyone at all close to him, yet, but allowing the Constitution to be interpreted "in light of the times" paves the path to have one.
The core of the Constitution is timeless, because it concerns the nature of man and government: the will to power, and the resulting trampling of human rights and dignity. We abandon the original meaning only at great peril.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, I don't know of any "freedom loving Americans" who would so debase public and political discourse by vomiting the so-called word, "Islamofacist." It's such a perversion -- so inflammatory, and disrespectful. The only people I hear using that ugly slur are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Fox News, and many right wingers. I place them all in one container, and that container's label reads, "For Freedom Haters Only."

What term would you use for those who have so perverted Islam to make it little different from the ancient worship of Moloch -- shedding blood indiscriminately to acquire the favor of one's deity?

I think the term is quite useful. It catches the flavor of what such people are after -- the establishment not of a national socialist government, but an Islamist-socialist government, a cross between the Nazi system and a twisted version of Islam.

Or do you maintain that the terrorists who hate us so are representatives of what Islam truly is?

 

[Homoaffectional]

The essential goal of the Constitution is not to provide a framework for government, but to limit it to the least possible government.

Dude... dude... oh dude.

I'm afraid you're going all Hector Projector on us.

You're basically projecting your Libertarianism on the US constitution.

You may want that to be the goal of the constitution, but that's not what it's about, and that's *NEVER* been what it's about.

The US Constitution was basically founded so that the new confederation of states that recently broke free from the British empire wouldn't repeat the same mistakes they made.

Whether that was through more government or less government, America is essentially an experiment to see if they could do a better job, minus colonialism/imperialism, and monarchy/dictatorship.

Right now seems to be the ultimate test of whether or not that will succeed.

What you just typed seems to be more wishful thinking, than anything...


I'm sorry if you mistook the Federalist Papers for the Constitution. They're not the same thing.

 

[Homoaffectional]

The Federalists were the ones pushing for the ratification of the Constitution; it seems reasonable that the Federalists' opinions on the matter would be taken into consideration.

Speaking of the Federalist Papers, they are brilliant and one should really read them.

Sorry I don't think declaring people of color as "Three Fifths of human beings" is in any way, shape, or form 'brilliant'. That was implemented in the constitution, so I don't need to read the Federalist Papers for more of junk like that.

I also think the Electoral College is a mess, that makes it all that much easier for elections to be rigged. What's even sicker is that people who have a vested interest in *opposing* it *actually think it's a good thing*. Ah-nuld's recent veto of the CA bill that would give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote begins to nudge me in a direction that if we ever elected presidents by popular vote, Democrats would win forever, despite anything the Republicans tried to throw at us.

From what I understand, there were very few options at the time.

The 'framers' and 'founding fathers' did the best they could w/what they have. But America, though made to be robust and durable, was hardly ever a beacon of human rights and liberty, from its founding to the present day. It basically served as not as bad as the rest at the time, and continued to be so for some time... but now I fear that that time where that could be counted on is also soon past...

 

[james1200]

the electoral college while it's helped the evil retarded monkey get elected twice is not a bad system. it's how the electoral votes went to the retard that should be questioned...if they hadn't stolen votes in florida the electoral votes woulda been gore's in 2000...and don't even get me started on ohio.

but it's a good system anyway cause in the future (and from what i understand this was the founding fathers' intention) it might keep an absolute fascist from being elected. keep in mind that in a four way race, a pat buchanan can win all the eletoral votes, even those of new york's and massacussets with just 27% of the vote...but that still means 77% voted against him. now when the electoral college gathers a month or so after the election, the other candidates can agree to release their electoral representatives who do the actual voting for president to a candidate that's not buchanan and keep him from becoming president. seems like a really good system designed to keep a true extremist from being elected. we rid ourselves of it at our own peril.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, after three semesters of classes devoted to SCOTUS opinions all I'll say is that it has been extremely enlightening---I don't see what you claim is there. Because of that, I won't argue your points because I've read their opinions, majority and dissenting, and have seen that SCOTUS takes its obligation to uphold the Constitution a lot more responsibly and seriously than the other two branches has. Outside of asking you to come and take those three classes or attempt to teach you three classes worth over this forum or come here so I can do so in person I'm just going to have to disagree with you on the basis of a failure of evidence to warrant accepting your point as vaild and true.

Oh, SCOTUS takes it obligation a lot more seriously, no doubt. But it has still let all sorts of things creep in that aren't authorized in the Constitution -- that's where we got this huge FedGov bureaucracy.
And in recent years it has gutted free speech for the specious goal of "avoiding the appearance of corruption", continually hacked away at the fourth amendment, among others, and almost totally ignored (as it has for decades) the Ninth and Tenth.
A SCOTUS dedicated to the Bill of Rights would eliminate (at least) half the Cabinet departments the moment they were challenged, would wipe out every law in the land that has anything to do with firearms ownership, and if faced with a gay marriage case would void all laws concerning marriage in the least. The entirety of Bush's faith-based BS would be tossed, along with a number of his other fave concepts. A SCOTUS seriously intent on upholding the Constitution would take a deep breath and do away with public schools, as well -- mostly because they aren't authorized anywhere.
We might even end up with a free country again, one where private property meant what it sounds like, and free enterprise would be unshackled to produce a lot more wealth -- without being stifled by government-protected business and monopolies. It would be easy to be proud to be an American... and I could change the phrase under my avatar!

 

[Homoaffectional]

the electoral college while it's helped the evil retarded monkey get elected twice is not a bad system.

Couldn't disagree with you more, James. The electoral college is a horrendously bad system. It basically discourages people from turning out in any state but battleground states. And the battleground states, people pay attention to on election years, and then often ignore.

It also places states that lean, whether lightly or heavily, in one direction, at the absolute mercy of the whims of swing states.

And the turd in the living room is the fact that all Republicans need to do is rig a battleground state, and people in other states are virtually helpless to do anything about it. They can't compensate for voter suppression or rigged electronic machines by turning out the vote in overwhelming numbers in other states, because once they get the 50% + 1 mark, their part is finished.

That's 'not a bad system'? If so, I'd hate to see what was...

If we had elections by popular vote, it would be nearly impossible to rig presidential races... because the GOP can't control every precinct everywhere, and if they tried, this -- which is rapidly becoming a Nazi dictatorship -- would be exposed as the sham it is...

 

[james1200]

i don't disagree about how it's all about the battleground states...but what about the framers' intent...that in a four-way or even three-way race, you could elect an absolute dictator of some sort with less than a third of the vote...

for example, i love history and i know that revisionists have turnerd woodrow wilson into some sort of god, but when teddy roosevelt and the progressive republicans (i know...it's strange saying that) split the republican vote back in 1912 back when the dems were the racist reactionaries, wilson won with 40% and his party took over congress for the first time in a generation when up to that point the democrats were just a southern party and the rest of the country was republican. this could happen again but with a much worse canidate and without the electoral college, there's no way to stop him or her.

 

[james1200]

The 3/5 Compromise was brilliant, relatively speaking, even though the South was in the wrong for doing it. The only people that should've been counted at all, and only as whole people, were those that were free. The document didn't relegate people of color to 3/5s, as there were freed blacks.

As for the Federalist Papers, I'll admit that I don't recall any mention of the 3/5 Compromise within them. If you come across it or any mention of slavery then take them with a grain of salt; ignorance of this country's founding is pointless if you wish to discuss politics. Just because you don't like the sordid parts of our past doesn't mean that you should pretend it never happened.

ugh...i'm gonna throw up.

the reason for the compromise was because of the black issue...i've never heard of a white southern slave...am i missing something? why are you going around in circles saying the same thing as him?

 

[Homoaffectional]

The 3/5 Compromise was brilliant

Um... sure.

OK... you know what?

I think it's simpy time for 'ignore' at this point.

Another great feature JUB has that the 'B'B doesn't...

 

[khushibagh]

If you would study history instead of ignoring it, as I said before, you'd learn something---the 3/5 Compromise made the Constitution possible, which eventually lead to the outlaw of slavery. I'm curious what the future of the colonies would have been like without what the Founders accomplished in Pennsylvania that summer.

That and a big ole war! OTOH if they had just let the Southern racists go, the rest of the country could have evolved into a civilized place like Canada. The South has done nothing but pervert American politics for two centuries and counting.