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.
Socialism (defined as government support of some private business) is always present. It is only acceptable if it bails out the property owning business classes when their Ponzi schemes fail. Socialism is disparages when the government attempts to lessen the misery and danger of being poor.
Trickle Down and de-regulations went to put us in the mess we are now, not "liberal policy" and not "moral decay", though I invite you to describe this "moral decay" in the US.
De-regulations did NOT get us where we are today - it was government regulations and corruption that got us into this mess. Read about the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess and you will see how government regulation and interference led this country down the path of financial ruin. And their answer? Spend more. Moral decay has been happening with Hollywood's ever growing influence. If you cannot see that then maybe you need to become "open minded" a little more.
From Wikepedia;
"Bread and circuses" (or Bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for handouts and petty amusements that politicians use to gain popular support, instead of gaining it through sound policy. The phrase is invoked not only to criticize politicians, but also to criticize their supporters for giving up their civic duty.
1. Socialism is present in ANY Constitutional Republic. It isn't some recent "Democratic thing", and Republicans are just as culpable. Everything from public libraries and aprks to streets and roads to emergency services are forms of "socailism"
The presence of something does not justify it. While some social programs make sense, socialism as an economic model does not. Socialism is contrary to personal freedom and incentive, therefore should only be applied when no other reasonable solution to a situation exists.
Quote:
2. Religion? I hope you aren't attempting to claim religion has some inherent right in public institutions and laws.
While I do not believe in any specific religion being used in law or government, I do believe the basis of all laws have their roots in religion. We should be open to the teachings of all religions and take the best from them. My reference in the OP to religion, was that at one time people tried to practice what their religions taught. Most religion teaches ethics and personal responsibility.
Quote:
3. Obviously you don;t know much about US history, or the athletes and actors (of stage and screen) who have been celebrated.
I would gladly debate you any time on US history. Until recent history most actors and athletes were lower paying positions, entertainers in general were considered a lower social class (with good reason) throughout most of civilized history.
Quote:
4. There is no such thing as a "Presidential Decree". Executive Orders are indeed subject to the same laws and limitations as Congressional law. And the Judicial Branch operate well within their Constitutional Mandate, measuring laws against that document and the principles held within.
Presidential decree is a play on words, comparing the President to a King, Executive orders are being used increasingly to pass laws that would not be passed if the public had any say in the matter, such as using military troops to suppress the American people. To say either one operated within their Constitutional mandate when the Constitution is being "interpreted" instead of strictly followed is nonsensical.
De-regulations did NOT get us where we are today - it was government regulations and corruption that got us into this mess. Read about the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess and you will see how government regulation and interference led this country down the path of financial ruin. And their answer? Spend more. Moral decay has been happening with Hollywood's ever growing influence. If you cannot see that then maybe you need to become "open minded" a little more.
Right, so the deregulation created by the Big Business lving GOp had nothing to do with it.
I suggest you look into it a might deeper.
BTW, I asked for specific examples of "moral decay", not the usual "Hollywood Dunnit" spiel.
The presence of something does not justify it. While some social programs make sense, socialism as an economic model does not. Socialism is contrary to personal freedom and incentive, therefore should only be applied when no other reasonable solution to a situation exists.
The presence of Socialism in this Nation for her entire history justifies it in the degree that it is currently present, and also eliminates the current Chicken Little mentality as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
While I do not believe in any specific religion being used in law or government, I do believe the basis of all laws have their roots in religion. We should be open to the teachings of all religions and take the best from them. My reference in the OP to religion, was that at one time people tried to practice what their religions taught. Most religion teaches ethics and personal responsibility.
No, the basis of laws is in reaction to concerns which impact society, from murder to playing your radio too loud in the wee hours of the morning. Religios doctrine has no place in either laws or public institutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
I would gladly debate you any time on US history. Until recent history most actors and athletes were lower paying positions, entertainers in general were considered a lower social class (with good reason) throughout most of civilized history.
You stated that the current fization on hollywood celebs and athletes was a current thing. This is incorrect. Feelf ree to debate the issue, but I think it would require another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Presidential decree is a play on words, comparing the President to a King, Executive orders are being used increasingly to pass laws that would not be passed if the public had any say in the matter, such as using military troops to suppress the American people. To say either one operated within their Constitutional mandate when the Constitution is being "interpreted" instead of strictly followed is nonsensical.
Firstly, I was quite aware of your childish word games. Second, Executive Orders can be challenged in courts, can be overturned by Congress, and indeed any funding for said Order MUST pass THROUGH Congress as well.
BTW, example of this "military supressing American citizens" please.
The presence of Socialism in this Nation for her entire history justifies it in the degree that it is currently present, and also eliminates the current Chicken Little mentality as well.
No, the basis of laws is in reaction to concerns which impact society, from murder to playing your radio too loud in the wee hours of the morning. Religios doctrine has no place in either laws or public institutions.
You stated that the current fization on hollywood celebs and athletes was a current thing. This is incorrect. Feelf ree to debate the issue, but I think it would require another thread.
There must be some semblance of coherent thought somewhere in these three poorly written paragraphs, but for the life of me I cannot imagine what it is, so I will not waste time replying.
Quote:
Firstly, I was quite aware of your childish word games. Second, Executive Orders can be challenged in courts, can be overturned by Congress, and indeed any funding for said Order MUST pass THROUGH Congress as well.
“Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism”.
Wikipedia® August 25, 2009
Quote:
BTW, example of this "military supressing American citizens" please.
•
The Posse Comitatus Act limits the power of the federal government to authorize the use of military power during domestic conflicts.
The Act can be waived via an executive order. Some of the most notable waivers of the Posse Comitatus Act came by Bill Clinton in 1993 during the FBI standoff with Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and Ronald Reagan's order to round-up Cuban refugees in 1987
HowStuffWorks: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone.
There must be some semblance of coherent thought somewhere in these three poorly written paragraphs, but for the life of me I cannot imagine what it is, so I will not waste time replying.
Ad hominems, the last resort of people who have nothing to bring to the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
“Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism”.
Wikipedia® August 25, 2009
Thank you for making my point for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The Posse Comitatus Act limits the power of the federal government to authorize the use of military power during domestic conflicts.
The Act can be waived via an executive order. Some of the most notable waivers of the Posse Comitatus Act came by Bill Clinton in 1993 during the FBI standoff with Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and Ronald Reagan's order to round-up Cuban refugees in 1987
HowStuffWorks: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
The FBI is not military, nor are Cuban refugees American citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone.
EO 9066 was created, if you will remember, during a time of declared War.
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 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.
