U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-25-2015, 11:01 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
And those of us who were politically aware back in 1964, can recall Senator Humphrey's tiring rants in which every measure he wanted to force upon the nation was favored by his cronies -- "but not Senator Goldwater". The choir would echo as blindly and unquestioningly as any congregation of Bible-thumpers. But as it turned out a lot of the things Goldwater envisioned came to pass -- but with no help from Senator Humphrey -- who tried to turn the rule of law into rule by the loudest voices.
Even when speaking at political rallies and conventions, Hubert Humphrey was a solid middle-of-the-roader who saw good in everyone. Compare and contrast his stances to those of Bobby Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, or George McGovern, each of whom was well to the left of Humphrey. Barry Goldwater was meanwhile a decent human being whose strained political views made him a dangerous extremist. The right-wing today of course recognizes no such thing as being too much of an extremist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The Founding Fathers recognized the full potential of democracy...
Which is why they wanted to have as little to do with actual democracy as possible. They went to great lengths to insulate the players in their new government from the nonsense poison and palaver of the masses. To those who invented the phrase, "We, the People", it meant educated, wealthy, white male land-owners. Others need not apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The question at this point is whether the pragmatic, more-mature and better-educated portions of the center can muster an appeal to reason sufficient to overcome the superficial appeals for instant and/or absolute gratification found among the faltering extremes at both ends of the political spectrum.
The so-called "center" of today is ambivalent, uninterested, and almost totally uneducated about the actual issues that we grapple with as a nation. This is why flat-out nonsense dominates public discourse. The average person is simply a dunce, knowing very little and believing all sorts of things to be the case that simply are not and never have been.

Last edited by Reynard32; 10-25-2015 at 11:58 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2015, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,397 posts, read 6,809,992 times
Reputation: 14461
Moderator cut: Off Topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32 View Post
The Commerce Clause was and still is essential to effective national government. The federal government at the time was rendered all but powerless in dealing with international trade and finance, as the words of our diplomats and national officials were all subject to the often crazed whims of state and local legislators. It was pointless to try to negotiate anything with the United States when in fact the states were not at all united and operated as self-serving independent fiefdoms.
There were two components to the controversy which led to the Commerce Clause, and both had their roots in the divergent interests of the North, South and West -- as outlined in my previous Post #17. The first revolved around the imposition of a protective tariff against imports, which gained support among Northerners as the first systems of mass production emerged, but would be opposed by the Southern and Western agrarians who would pay higher prices. The second revolved around the possibility of individual states imposing tariffs against the produce of their neighbors; this would have reduced each state to a "banana republic" pursuing its own agenda, the strongest and most-politically-connected seeking artificial benefit for their "sham" enterprises at the expense of the rest.

By limiting the (hopefully, seldom needed or used) power to regulate commerce to the Federal government, the possibility of trade wars between the states was nipped in the bud. Free trade leveled the playing field and the "invisible hand" described by Adam Smith did the rest, just as it has in Western Europe since 1945. But the point as to who got the idea first is seldom recognized by those whose goal is irrational, absolute power.

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-25-2015 at 11:23 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 11:32 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
My perception differs markedly from yours.
Because yours are from the tradition of the charlatans and silver-tounged demagogues that the founders so feared when contemplating the notion of accepting input from the masses. And never forget that your precious small-government anti-federalists were roundly defeated by the more sensible of the day in their every attempt to delay and derail the rescue of the nation. And let's be quite clear that the nation was indeed coming apart at she seams after little more than a decade of governance under the weak central government that the Articles provided and that the anti-federalists still favored. The nation survived those difficult times at all only because your side lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Anyone who thinks as you posted immediately above doesn't understand the concept of the separation of church and state and the freedom of religious expression.
It's really quite simple. First, religion in this country is an individual right and everyone has it equally. Second, no one may use any power of the state to endorse or enhance the standing of any particular religion or of religion in general over non-religion. Deal with it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 11:48 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
I never understand from where this notion arises.
You're a couple of hundred years behind the times.

Marbury v Madison
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 11:56 AM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I'm glad you said this. This idea that these inequities are way long past is such a distortion of history. I remember it all well, as do you. And even after the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s, vestiges of the inequities continued, and while far more subtle today, have not all disappeared.
Quite the contrary, The right-wing of today makes every effort to de-fang and roll back the Voting Rights Act and seeks otherwise to limit and suppress the vote. Their latest trick is to call for voting districts to be drawn on the basis of voters rather than residents. This would have the effect of empowering rural and other conservative areas over urban and other liberal areas. Any port in a storm for the seedy America-haters.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 12:14 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084
Moderator cut: Off Topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
There were two components to the controversy which led to the Commerce Clause...
I read your other bit of diversionary history as well. It was irrelevant, and so is this one. The Commerce Clause is conceptual in its nature, being based upon the necessary principle of federal government supremacy on matters of interstate commerce. The mundane hum-drum of any particular situation of real world envy and competition did not and does not enter into the matter.

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-25-2015 at 11:23 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 12:48 PM
 
6,169 posts, read 3,264,691 times
Reputation: 12518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
My perception differs markedly from yours.



You cannot seriously or credibly take the extremists as an example. I can cite black opposition to gay rights. Should I extrapolate that opposition to all Liberals? No. Of course not.

And most people misunderstand the idea of separation of church and state, at least as far as the Constitution originally dealt with it.

Moderator cut: Personal Attack



Anyone who thinks as you posted immediately above doesn't understand the concept of the separation of church and state and the freedom of religious expression.



The Constitution expressed the ideal of equally-created peoples and liberty. Sure, it took a long time to realise those ideals, but, they were indeed contained in the Constitution. Claiming that Americans were slow to follow the Constitution is no valid criticism of the Constitution. It is an indictment of the American people for failing to live up to those lofty ideals.
Moderator cut: Off Topic

Suffice to say that one person's rights, religious or otherwise, STOPS where another person's rights begins. It is against the law to refuse service to a person of the public because you personally believe that person lives a lifestyle that you are religiously opposed to. That is true whether the person of the public is an interracial couple, a gay person, or a glutton (gluttony being one of the seven deadly sins, unlike homosexuality)

Your religious rights guarantee you the right to worship as you see fit.....unless and until it interferes with someone else's rights, civil or otherwise. A member of the public has the civil right to be guaranteed the same service as other members of the public. That is what hte Constitution and our other founding documents are about.

If I am an atheist, I am guaranteed the right to not worship. However, if I'm in business serving the public, I do not have the right to refuse service to a religious person because my atheist beliefs are against religion and deity belief.

If religious people can't fill prescriptions, sell pastries and cakes, and otherwise conduct civil business, they have to change their business to one that is religious driven, or get out of serving the general public of the United States. ALL members of the general public of the U.S. are guaranteed access to the same service of businesses that sell to the public.

Wacko extremists can't seem to accept that concept. The wacko religious clerk who won't sign marriage licenses for gay couples (she really tried to thwart the federal law, thinking the public stupid enough to believe that she knew better...she got her 15 minutes of fame, though). The wacko religious zealots who refused to sell a wedding cake for a gay wedding. The wacko religious nuts who refused to fill birth control prescriptions. The religious terrorists who blow up abortion clinics. The religious politicians who make it impossible to get an abortion, since they can't thwart the law any other way. There are MANY examples of religious people trying to visit their beliefs on other people.

NOT ONCE have I heard of a liberal in the business of selling to the public, refusing service to a religious person because they are against religion. Forcing others in a private setting NOT to pray. Or any such nonsense.

Liberals are much more aware of the meaning of separation of church and state, civil rights for all, equality under the law. IMO.

It seems you didn't pay attention in Civics class. I, OTOH, went to the state competition on the matter of....THE CONSTITUTION.

Last edited by Jeo123; 10-25-2015 at 11:27 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 01:26 PM
 
964 posts, read 925,258 times
Reputation: 1198
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
constitution is never taught and respected, people think they have rights
People often misunderstand the Constitution and believe they have rights that do not exist. How many times have you heard, "It's a free country," misappropriated…or claims of free speech when someone disagrees with them? We are the land of the free, but we are also the land of the blissfully ignorant.

I was born in 1980 and was educated in the suburbs during an era when education was not valued….many people felt that school was not cool, and this is what we have to show for it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 01:49 PM
 
1,589 posts, read 881,670 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7 View Post
People often misunderstand the Constitution and believe they have rights that do not exist.
Or fail to understand that they have responsibilities that DO exist. This is quite common among all these disinformed "Liberty & Freedom" faddists, for instance.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2015, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Illinois
3,168 posts, read 4,160,237 times
Reputation: 5580
I dunno about being respected but definitely taught. My daughter served as an "attorney" recently at her high school. They definitely have to know and recite the Constitution and BOR. She was one of the "few" lawyer.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top