American values

[pamsback]

Billy back then I would've been so far to the right you wouldn't even have been able to find me. This ain't then this is now. It pisses me off to pay taxes, I don't agree with at least 70% of what the government does.....but there is this thing called the LAW and as a "good little citizen" and a "patriotic american" I am supposed to "do my part"

Nowhere in ANY thing I have ever said will you find "GOVERNMENT knows best it should be BIGGER and gimmee gimmee gimmee. I have said at LEAST 15 or 20 times that they should throw ALL the bums out and start over. The ONLY place to do that is in the middle because NEITHER major party wants to get OFF the government tit and you are foolin yourself if you think they do.

I support BETTER management of the money they ALREADY take NOT takin more or gettin bigger. IF they are goin to take my tax dollars I want them spent to BETTER the situations of people who have nothing or very little instead of financing "summits" to tropical islands and tradin in the jet for a more luxurious model.

THAT is MY middle....smaller government but since it ain't gonna happen anytime soon......get your shit together and start spendin the PEOPLES money where it will do some good......on the PEOPLE.

ALL the rest of what you said to DIane.......takes us back to what I started this with GREED....GREED turned the unions into monsters...GREED turned the government into a monster....GREED is why anybody who wants to share gets called a "socialist" GREED is what runs things because deep down we are ALL greedy little children who think we need to have a bigger piece of pie than the OTHER kids do and until we change THAT nothin else is goin to change.

Now I said I was done for the weekend but like the idiot I am I just HAD to see what yall were sayin because this interests me...BUT I have made what I think as clear as it's ever gonna get and I don't want to get involved in the same shit different day blah blah that just goes in circles and people end up mad. That isn't what this was about...it was about how greed has perverted things. Y'all are where you are so to speak and I am where I am goin to stay so to speak and I hope we can discuss other issues and do it like we have here but beatin a dead horse does no good.

A debate helps me weed out MY stand more than anything. Other peoples points of view ALWAYS do that for me. It helps me see what is important enough to me that I'll stand no matter what and it helps me see what really ain't that big a deal to me. I'm not tryin to change anybody elses opinion I'm cementin my own.

So yall have a nice Sunday and enjoy it without worryin what the government is doin today.



The revolution WAS anarchy...so is ANY war.

[dnalexander]

I have a question for those of you who say you are moderates, centerists.  Do you know that the founders wanted us as close to anarchy as possible?  When our government was formed the left v. right looked something like this

left (total gov't control)---------------middle---------------right--anarchy

through so called compromise that original blueprint has been preverted to something like this

left---middle--right------------------anarchy

So to say that you are a centerist is somewhat faulty.  If you think that I am wrong here, then go read the founders letters, the original papers.  And ask yourself, if the founders were centerists why would they want to give more power to state governments and less power to the Federal gov't? 

A discussion of politics is not complete without the discussion of anarchy. Like the terms Socialist, Democratic, Left, Right, Conservative, and Liberal the terms are disputed not only by those with an opposing view, but by those that hold the proponent view. Was Billy  saying that the founding fathers were closer to socialists and anarchists than they are to our own liberal Democratic party. I doubt it, but I will let him speak for himself. Either way if this makes anyone do a little reading on our founding fathers and\or anarchy it will have been worth all this typing.
David


Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

The basic tenet of anarchism is that hierarchical authority -- be it state, church, patriarchy or economic elite -- is not only unnecessary, but is inherently detrimental to the maximization of human potential. Anarchists generally believe that human beings are capable of managing their own affairs on the basis of creativity, cooperation, and mutual respect. It is believed that power is inherently corrupting, and that authorities are inevitably more concerned with self-perpetuation and increasing their own power than they are with doing what is best for their constituents. Anarchists generally maintain that ethics are a personal matter, and should be based upon concern for others and the wellbeing of society, rather than upon laws imposed by a legal or religious authority (including revered laws such as the U.S. Constitution). Most anarchist philosophies hold that individuals are responsibile for their own behavior. Paternalistic authorities foster a dehumanized mindset in which people expect elites to make decisions for them and meet their needs, rather than thinking and acting for themselves. When an authority arrogates to itself the right to overrule the most fundamental personal moral decisions, such as what is worth killing or dying for (as in military conscription or abortion), human freedom is immeasurably diminished.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html

Are anarchists socialists?Yes.All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]
(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secAcon.html
.

[Anmar]

Billy, I agree with you to a certain degree, although i think the founders wanted government to be more local.  The smaller the government, the more rights it had.  I think every single person on this forum who DOESN'T identify themselves as a right wing conservative has already advocated something along the lines of "get rid of everything and start something much smaller"

There are some ideas that are just natural. 

[dnalexander]

During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers. We here present some of the best and most widely read of these. They contain warnings of dangers from tyranny that weaknesses in the proposed Constitution did not adequately provide against, and while some of those weaknesses were corrected by adoption of the Bill of Rights, others remained, and some of these dangers are now coming to pass.
The most important way to read the pro- and anti-federalist papers is as a debate on how the provisions of the Constitution would be interpreted, or "constructed". Those opposing ratification, or at least raising doubts about it, were not so much arguing against the ratification of some kind of federal constitution, as against expansive construction of provisions delegating powers to the national government, and the responses from pro-ratificationists largely consisted of assurances that the delegations of power would be constructed strictly and narrowly. Therefore, to win the support of their opponents, the pro-ratificationists essentially had to consent to a doctrine of interpretation that must be considered a part of the Constitution, and that therefore must be the basis for interpretation today. This doctrine can be summed up by saying, "if a construction would have been objectionable to the anti-federalists, it should be initially presumed unconstitutional".

Ratification Debates Of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers (The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp
Anti-Federalist Papers
http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm
Elliot's Records of Debates in State Legislatures http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

Above links are from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/history.html

David (Sorry I did my typing for the day so you all will have to do the reading yourself. This is my response to those that keep saying the founding fathers all agreed and that we were not formed by a compromise) Federalist or Anti-Federalist is just about as far apart on agreeing as you can get.)

[dnalexander]

he Centrist Party positions center on administration and leadership principles as foundations for elected representatives in the following areas: Economy; Education; Energy; Environment; Healthcare; Political Reform; Security. Policy direction is need dependent and some positions will be further developed as needs are better understood. The basic premise is simple: Common sense and reason applied to the common good and national needs.

Economy

Secure - stable - sustainable - well reasoned economics: Free markets through market transparency, with market regulation limited to the common good of the people that enables equality of opportunity and fair competition, based on performance and productivity. Checks and balances to ensure that competition and innovation are not squeezed out of the American Dream. Protect and allow for potential to be achieved by the virtue of individual will, rather than subsidy without performance agreements or due consideration to cost/benefit relationships. Balance between boutique economic systems and national/international systems.

Read More...
Education

Life Skills - Innovation - Performance: Performance based systems to motivate the achievement of higher potentials. We need to begin dealing with the multitude of factors that impede our children's education and transition out of the industrial model of education to foster innovation, critical thinking and problem solving.

Read More...
Energy

Clean - Safe - Sustainable: Economically sound systems and rapid transition strategies based on needs and available technology to achieve energy independence and a healthier future. Enabling transitions to protect the health of the environment and provide sufficient energy is key to a stable healthy transition. Carbon Sequestration, alternative energy systems and reduced energy consumption and efficiency are critical in this endeavor.

Read More...
Environment

Clean - Safe - Sustainable: Policy based on realistic assessment of available resources and common sense usage of those resources regarding system capacity and regulation considerate of these ends. Any lack of consideration in this area directly affects our economy and security. Rapidly addressing needed policy directives will yield more affordable solutions and a healthier future. Carbon Sequestration, alternative energy systems and reduced energy consumption and efficiency are critical in this endeavor.

Read More...
Healthcare

Health - Food - Lifestyle: Real health-care is promoting and increasing health, not concentrating on disease-care after the fact. A distinct lack of effort in empowering the FDA to perform its mission has allowed a general degradation of the health of our food system. This in turn requires a greater emphasis on the pharmaceutical industry to cure our ills. The thinking is obviously backwards. We need to reduce or eliminate special interest influence and empower the FDA to achieve its mission. Unhealthy food and lifestyles are a major cause of increased cost of healthcare. Work towards performance based healthcare systems with client choice and simplified tiered assessment methods.

Read More...
Political Reform

Integrity - Honor - Humility: Get special interests out of the electoral and legislative process. We need leadership that is strong enough to stand and fight for what needs to be done, not what is popular with the electorate. The people will need to lead on these issues. Campaign reform is only the beginning. We need to address the fundamental basis of the erosion of the system, including supreme court decisions that may be at odds with reason and common sense.

Read More...
Security

To be a beacon of freedom and democracy we must practice and enforce the protection of these ideals at home and abroad. Enhance state department communications capacity. Recognize actions have short and long term consequences. Support and empower the military rather than outsource. Commit to conflict only when justified by fact of established threat, required action, not agenda. We should not be afraid to draw the sword, nor to sheath it. Once committed, attend to pentagon protocols for success in-theater including manpower and equipment.

Read More...

http://www.uscentrist.org/platform/positions/

[flintauqua]

I agree, Thanks David.

[redcliffsw]

I've never heard of this Centrist Party until now.  Nothing new there.
It's the "same ole soup, just warmed over".     
The Centrist is just another liberal and leftist group, not "center".

Billy recognizes this so-called "centrist" movement for what it really is.

[dnalexander]

By definition a centrist is a moderate between the left and right. I am surprised that you have never heard of the Centrist Party. But then I posted it so people would be better informed and you now know more than you did before. Maybe you can back up your opinions on what a centrist is and we can all learn something new. I am not trying to get you to join the Centrist Party and in fact I am not a member and would not join it. 

David

[flintauqua]

David,

I think I just figured "it" out.

There's "right wing, and "ultra right wing"  The true "center" is in between these two conservative views.  Everything to the left of "right wing" is therefore "leftist or liberal".

Charles

P.S. Which emoticon is for "dripping with sarcasm"?

[Anmar]

I was thinking of writing a post along the lines of

"Dave, half the people on these forums just saw

- Economy
Socialist

- Foreign Policy
Socialist

- Health Care
-Socialist"

I waited, studied for a midterm i have tomorrow, and checked in to see i had missed my opportunity by waiting.  Red beat me to it, except she's not joking.