Back to SoWal Lounge

Why are you a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Centrist etc..

Beach Fanatic
4,498 views
I am doing this for a school project and think it may be fun to do here on Sowal.

So why are you a (whatever you are).

P.S. before anyone thinks their creative and says "I am an American," of course you're allowed to do that, but I think it's against the spirit of democracy to just agree and end debate. Read what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers: there is supposed to be intense debate and chair throwing; but what makes our democracy great is that after all the intense debate we have peaceful transitions of power.

But just have fun.

I'll start:

I'm a Republican because:
  • I believe that the human spirit can do better things for people than government ever could.
  • I believe that government handouts are an "addictive narcotic" and "Subtle destroyer of the human spirit" but job programs build "Self-reliance" and "Self-respect" (btw thats a FDR quote)
  • I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government
  • I believe that education policies should have the students best interest at heart, not the Teachers unions.
  • I believe that every person on the planet (including those in the Middle East) have the right to live free of tyranny and oppression.
  • I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights.
  • I believe that every person is capable of succeeding if only their government would challenge them rather than accomodate them.
  • I believe that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and should use its power to make the world a better place.
  • I believe that there are many inneficiences in Government that can be made better and cost less.

[/LIST]
Your turn...

Replies

102
Beach FanaticAuthor
#77
By the way, not only are those not in the Constitution, they are not part of the Republican platform.

Murray, I give you The Official 2008 GOP Platform for Elementary and Secondary Education.

The first line states, "All children should have access to an excellent education that empowers them to secure their own freedom and contribute to the betterment of our society."

How does that mean, "equal education for every student guaranteed by the government", is NOT part of the republican platform???

Source:http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Education.htm

Ouch!!

Edited

futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#78
Murray, I give you The Official 2008 GOP Platform for Elementary and Secondary Education.

The first line states, "All children should have access to an excellent education that empowers them to secure their own freedom and contribute to the betterment of our society."

How does that mean, "equal education for every student guaranteed by the government", is NOT part of the republican platform???

Source:http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Education.htm

Ouch!!

Just as an off-topic aside related to the Constitution and education, I believe that further you are from a problem, the less you care about it and the less effective you are in dealing with it.

This holds especially true for education. The further you get from a school system the less you care about and the less competent you are to deal with its problems. State level educators rarely are as invested in a school systems needs and success as those at the local level. This is even more true at the Federal level, yet we cede more and more control of our education process to the Federal government.

Where in the Constitution does it in any way give the Federal government any role in education, much less in a train wreck like the "No child too far ahead" legislation?

Edited

Beach FanaticAuthor
#79
Where in the Constitution does it in any way give the Federal government any role in education, much less in a train wreck like the "No child too far ahead" legislation?

Maybe the most controversial sentence in the entire constitution at the time of ratification. The infamous "Elastic Clause" which says in Article 1 section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is why I believe the constitution is mostly irrelevant in the creation of laws. It controls the way government should be structured, but even that has been changed by more recent government (See direct election of senators). But the constitution is very contradictory as far as how much power the federal government has: One one side, you have the 10th amendment, which which gives the Federal government NO power beyond the original constitution, then you have the Elastic clause, which gives government all the power in the world.

So that is where the Federal government gets its role in intruding into education at a local level. It is also where government gets the right to control your health care, break up corporations, and control social security.

Even at the time the federalist and anti-federalist argued intensely over what that meant. But it is why government has been able to grow beyond what the constitution specifically allows over time. This clause was obviously the most heavily debated at times like the Hamiltonian bank and the New Deal eras.


Just as an off-topic aside related to the Constitution and education, I believe that further you are from a problem, the less you care about it and the less effective you are in dealing with it.

This holds especially true for education. The further you get from a school system the less you care about and the less competent you are to deal with its problems. State level educators rarely are as invested in a school systems needs and success as those at the local level. This is even more true at the Federal level, yet we cede more and more control of our education process to the Federal government.

Well, until George W. Bush came into office, abolishing the Department of Education has been part of the Republican platform. Reagan and the Bush 41 just didn't have the votes in congress to actually do it. I think Bush 43 helped push federal intrusion into local education a more mainstream Republican party position.

I agree with that assessment to a certain extent. With that being said, I believe the Federal Department of Education being created in 1979 can be traced back to only 4 words in the Brown decision: "with all deliberate speed."

Well, certain states decided that their "deliberate speed" was going to be "NEVER."

After 25 years of unsuccessfully trying to get the states to do something that the federal government couldn't really force them to do, the federal government decided they would intrude. The original intent of the Department of Education was to deal with civil rights and dole out federal funding for Education. Really, only since No Child Left Behind has the federal government been involved in setting standards or curricula.

Although I agree that state governments need to have more control over standards and curricula, they have been known to wildly abuse that power. The Scopes trial and the recent Texas textbook controversy have shown that federal government could be a good way to ensure that states stay as neutral as possible in their education.

The Texas textbook controversy was wildly overblown in the liberal media. But what worries me about it is that those standards that only Texas set, will be in every textbook in the country when the next set of textbooks come out. So essentially, Texas controls the curricula of the entire country.

Edited

futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#80
Maybe the most controversial sentence in the entire constitution at the time of ratification. The infamous "Elastic Clause" which says in Article 1 section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is why I believe the constitution is mostly irrelevant in the creation of laws. It controls the way government should be structured, but even that has been changed by more recent government (See direct election of senators). But the constitution is very contradictory as far as how much power the federal government has: One one side, you have the 10th amendment, which which gives the Federal government NO power beyond the original constitution, then you have the Elastic clause, which gives government all the power in the world.

So that is where the Federal government gets its role in intruding into education at a local level. It is also where government gets the right to control your health care, break up corporations, and control social security.

Even at the time the federalist and anti-federalist argued intensely over what that meant. But it is why government has been able to grow beyond what the constitution specifically allows over time. This clause was obviously the most heavily debated at times like the Hamiltonian bank and the New Deal eras.




Well, until George W. Bush came into office, abolishing the Department of Education has been part of the Republican platform. Reagan and the Bush 41 just didn't have the votes in congress to actually do it. I think Bush 43 helped push federal intrusion into local education a more mainstream Republican party position.

I agree with that assessment to a certain extent. With that being said, I believe the Federal Department of Education being created in 1979 can be traced back to only 4 words in the Brown decision: "with all deliberate speed."

Well, certain states decided that their "deliberate speed" was going to be "NEVER."

After 25 years of unsuccessfully trying to get the states to do something that the federal government couldn't really force them to do, the federal government decided they would intrude. The original intent of the Department of Education was to deal with civil rights and dole out federal funding for Education. Really, only since No Child Left Behind has the federal government been involved in setting standards or curricula.

Although I agree that state governments need to have more control over standards and curricula, they have been known to wildly abuse that power. The Scopes trial and the recent Texas textbook controversy have shown that federal government could be a good way to ensure that states stay as neutral as possible in their education.

The Texas textbook controversy was wildly overblown in the liberal media. But what worries me about it is that those standards that only Texas set, will be in every textbook in the country when the next set of textbooks come out. So essentially, Texas controls the curricula of the entire country.

Nice post.

Abolishing the Dept of Ed has always been a fool's errand. Bureaucracy's raison d'etre is really to keep their employees employed. That means that they only grow, they never shrink and departments and agencies never go away. They may morph into other departments (like they did with DHS) but they don't go away or give up power.

The lack of connection in the public's mind between the drivel candidates spout (like this) compared to what they actually do when they get in office never ceases to amaze me.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#81
Maybe the most controversial sentence in the entire constitution at the time of ratification. The infamous "Elastic Clause" which says in Article 1 section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is why I believe the constitution is mostly irrelevant in the creation of laws. It controls the way government should be structured, but even that has been changed by more recent government (See direct election of senators). But the constitution is very contradictory as far as how much power the federal government has: One one side, you have the 10th amendment, which which gives the Federal government NO power beyond the original constitution, then you have the Elastic clause, which gives government all the power in the world.

So that is where the Federal government gets its role in intruding into education at a local level. It is also where government gets the right to control your health care, break up corporations, and control social security.

Even at the time the federalist and anti-federalist argued intensely over what that meant. But it is why government has been able to grow beyond what the constitution specifically allows over time. This clause was obviously the most heavily debated at times like the Hamiltonian bank and the New Deal eras.

This only applies to powers enumerated. It does not give the federal government the power to do anything it wishes. There are no enumerated powers related to education, nor healthcare. The general welfare clause also applies to enumerated powers. Madison was quite clear on this in Federalist fourty one.
Beach FanaticAuthor
#82
This only applies to powers enumerated. It does not give the federal government the power to do anything it wishes. There are no enumerated powers related to education, nor healthcare. The general welfare clause also applies to enumerated powers. Madison was quite clear on this in Federalist fourty one.


You're right about Madison, but you cite him just to fit your argument. Someone on the other side of the debate could use Hamilton to show you that these powers were "implied" and you need to have a broad view of the constitution.

I think ultimately Hamilton won the argument. If you look at McCulloch v. Maryland Chief Justice Marshall said that Maryland could not undermine the federal government and that Congress had the power to create a National Bank, even though the creation of a national bank was not an enumerated power. This case upheld a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.

So yes, you can take a strict narrow view of the constitution that Madison and Jefferson had, but it can always be counter-argued with Hamilton's broad view of federal powers. And Hamilton has the supreme court behind his argument.
Em avatar
Beach Fanatic
#83
That's a little something called the 10th Amendment. Education was not guaranteed in the constitution because it was left to the individual states. Massachusetts had compulsory education in the 1600's and it eventually spread to every state.

I would argue that since every state has compulsory education and every state is held to the 14th amendment, that that means every child has a guaranteed right to equal education guaranteed by the law. If you have a way of arguing against that I would be interested in hearing it.
You originally stated, "I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government."

I argued that the Constitution doesn't grant equal education. In your argument to state otherwise, you yourself state, "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," which is accurate and in agreement with me that equal education is not granted by the Constitution.


Nowhere does it say that, and I never said it did. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

What you actually wrote was, "I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights."

So you did state that. The US Constitution protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens.

By the way, if it is law, as you state, that everyone is granted equal education, why do schools limit the people who can attend?
Beach FanaticAuthor
#84
You originally stated, "I believe that every child has a constitutional right to an equal education granted by the government."

I argued that the Constitution doesn't grant equal education. In your argument to state otherwise, you yourself state, "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," which is accurate and in agreement with me that equal education is not granted by the Constitution.

There is a video clip of when Hillary Clinton is talking her view of School Vouchers and she straight out says: "I read genesis. Cain was marked. Therefore, I believe in White supremacy". People edited the clip to only show those words and plastered all over the internet. Of course in the context of her speech she was not saying that she was a white supremacist.

That's kind of what your doing here. I did say: "Education was not guaranteed in the constitution," but in the context of my post I was explaining that even though the constitution does not have the word education in it, it does indirectly guarantee every child equal education.

I will explain it again for you: The 10th amendment leaves education up to the states. Today EVERY STATE HAS COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAWS Because the 14th amendment says all states must protect all their citizens equally under the law, that means all students are guaranteed an equal education by the constitution.

So, I am not in agreement with you about equal education guaranteed under the constitution.





What you actually wrote was, "I also believe that non-U.S. citizen enemies of freedom around the world should have no constitutional and limited human rights."


So you did state that. The US Constitution protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens.

I would say that is debatable over who the constitution actually applies to. If you have any evidence that would prove one way or another, I am sure many constitutional scholars would love to see it. Because even the top people in constitutional law debate over who the constitution is supposed to apply to.

Obviously, most people agree that the constitution does not apply to any people, but it only applies to the government. The question is, whose rights does the government have to respect. (citizens, non-citizens, terrorists, dolphins, whales, Corporations is a big one)
By the way, if it is law, as you state, that everyone is granted equal education, why do schools limit the people who can attend?

Private Universities and Secondary schools: Limit who can attend but receive little government assistance other than Tax Breaks.

Public elementary and secondary schools: Limit who can attend but those limits apply to EVERYONE, which makes them equal. (limits mostly include neighborhoods)

Public Colleges and Universities: Limit who can attend because no state requires students to attend college so the state is still protecting all citizens under the law.

Basically, if the state requires students to attend the school then all those students must receive an equal education at the schools they are required to attend.

Edited

30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#85
You're right about Madison, but you cite him just to fit your argument. Someone on the other side of the debate could use Hamilton to show you that these powers were "implied" and you need to have a broad view of the constitution.

I think ultimately Hamilton won the argument. If you look at McCulloch v. Maryland Chief Justice Marshall said that Maryland could not undermine the federal government and that Congress had the power to create a National Bank, even though the creation of a national bank was not an enumerated power. This case upheld a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.

So yes, you can take a strict narrow view of the constitution that Madison and Jefferson had, but it can always be counter-argued with Hamilton's broad view of federal powers. And Hamilton has the supreme court behind his argument.

So you are a Marshall fan. Hmm, where is this originating from? Is this view based on something a public educator taught you or are you making your own informed decisions here?
Beach FanaticAuthor
#86
So you are a Marshall fan. Hmm, where is this originating from? Is this view based on something a public educator taught you or are you making your own informed decisions here?

Well actually it was a private educator!!

But seriously, I don't think I know enough about the Marshall court right now to really determine whether I like him or not. I do think that the National bank was a terrible idea, and in that respect, I would have to disagree with Hamilton and McCulloch v. Maryland, but I do like the decision because it has had a lasting impact on a broad view of the constitution.

My fear of taking a narrow view of the constitution is that the drafters could not have predicted every problem that Government would have to solve in the future. So, just because the drafters left something out, does not mean they would be against it. So, I think that if a law is passed using the formula that the founders developed, then that law will be constitutional.

I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today, would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

Edited

30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#87
Well actually it was a private educator!!

Whew. I've experienced my fair share of attempted indoctrination via public schooling, so I was curious.

But seriously, I don't think I know enough about the Marshall court right now to really determine whether I like him or not. I do think that the National bank was a terrible idea and in that respect I would have to disagree with Hamilton and McCulloch v. Maryland but I do like the decision because it has had a lasting impact on a broad view of the constitution.

My fear of taking a narrow view of the constitution is that the drafters could not have predicted every problem that Government would have to solve in the future. So, just because the drafters left something out does not mean they would be against it.

In McCulloch, Marshall ruled that so long as the attained goal was a reasonable extension of an enumerated power, it should be accepted. In the case of the national bank this had to do with collecting taxes. But even Marshall felt that the action must be an obvious extension of those responsibilities. What enumerated power does education and healthcare fall under in your view? I personally don't see it.

So, I think that if a law is passed using the formula that the founders developed, then that law will be constitutional. I wonder what the founders would have thought about having a Black president and a women secretary of state in the same administration.

What difference does it make what the founders would think about this? We amended to provide equal rights to all races, and both sexes. This was a decision made by a subsequent generation. The founders might not agree being slave owners, but they would have approved of the process by which we did it!

I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

Bad example, IMHO. How did we go about changing this in the Constitution? It was not based on a ruling by the Supreme Court.
Beach FanaticAuthor
#88
In McCulloch, Marshall ruled that so long as the attained goal was a reasonable extension of an enumerated power, it should be accepted. In the case of the national bank this had to do with collecting taxes. But even Marshall felt that the action must be an obvious extension of those responsibilities. What enumerated power does education and healthcare fall under in your view? I personally don't see it.

I don't think there is an enumerated power which deals with education. But there is an amendment, if the Equal protection clause of the 14th says that state governments must protect all citizens equally under the law, that means every child must have equal access to state required and funded education.

And if a state is not following the constitution then the Federal government is supposed to intervene. That is why the Department of Education is constitutional.



What difference does it make what the founders would think about this? We amended to provide equal rights to all races, and both sexes. This was a decision made by a subsequent generation. The founders might not agree being slave owners, but they would have approved of the process by which we did it!

I agree. That is what I was trying to say. You did a much better job of it though.



Bad example, IMHO. How did we go about changing this in the Constitution? It was not based on a ruling by the Supreme Court.

It was through ratification of the amendment by three-fourths of the states that it was changed in the constitution, just like the other amendments. My point is, direct election of senators in 1913 was extremely unconstitutional, but that doesn't make it wrong. The founding fathers set up a system so that future generations could change the constitution as they see necessary. So there was no supreme court case, but if someone had a narrow view of the constitution they would be against the direct election of senators because, at the time, it was unconstitutional.

The whole point of my argument isn't about whether something is constitutional or not, it's that it doesn't matter, because we can change that.

There are a lot of very good arguments against the recent Health-care legislation, and I agree with most of them, but saying the founding fathers or the constitution is against it, is useless because in reality, it doesn't matter. What the constitution originally said didn't matter with the seventeenth amendment and it doesn't matter now.

What does matter though, is that the constitution set up a genius structure of government that has allowed us to become the prosperous nation we have become.

Edited

30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#89
I don't think there is an enumerated power which deals with education. But there is an amendment, if the Equal protection clause of the 14th says that state governments must protect all citizens equally under the law, that means every child must have equal access to state required and funded education.

And if a state is not following the constitution then the Federal government is supposed to intervene. That is why the Department of Education is constitutional.

I don't disagree with you on that, I just don't see what the Department of Education has to do with it. The Dept. of Ed., really, does very little. Reagan described it as a boondogle. It's basicallly a 30 billion a year revenue suck, serving little purpose other than to bloat the federal government's civil service ranks.

Enjoyed the discussion. It's great to see younger generations digging into this stuff and formulating their own opinions.

Edited

futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#90
I'll give you a better example: in the original constitution senators were elected by state legislators, not through direct elections. The founding fathers did not want to give people that much power in government. But during the progressive era, government decided that direct election of senators would make the government more open and democratic (with a little "d").

I think that the founding fathers, if around today, would like the idea of direct election of senators because in more modern times, it works. But if someone was to take a more narrow view of the constitution, we would still have no ability to elect senators.

I disagree 100% with this. The Senate was intended to be an elite, appointed organization.

The founding fathers had vision that the House of Representatives would pretty much turn over every 2 years (because a man couldn't leave his farm for longer than that.) This would insure that the House would always be populated with the 'common man' who had a very current view of what real life was like. In point of fact, this pretty much held true until reelection rates started climbing steeply around 1900. For much of the time before 1900 reelection rates were between 40 and 60%. Now its closer to 90% (although hopefully this years mid-term elections could break that trend.)

At the same time, a House with an average experience governing of < 2 years would need a counter balance. The Senate was intended to be the steadying hand on government. Senators were to be somewhat 'above the fray'. They were typically also more 'upper class' (ie: richer) than the Congressmen in the house (hence they could be away to serve a 6 year term.) Changing the Senate to a popularly elected position eliminated the ability of the Senate to remain above the fray.

To pass a law, these two very differently motivated groups of people would have to come together and negotiate on their differences. This ability to compromise from two very divergent positions did 2 things. First, it kept them from passing too many laws. Second, it required that some percentage of the House and Senate actually be Statesmen who cared enough to work things out. Both of these features are sadly missing in our government for the past 40-50 years.

Rather than endorsing the 17th Amendment, I believe the founding fathers would be horrified by both the conduct of elections in general and specifically by the re-election rates in the House.
Em avatar
Beach Fanatic
#91
hkem1, by stating that anything not covered in the Constitution is covered by the States, is horse poop. If that were the case, pretty much everything would be considered, "Constitutional."

Again, if every person is granted equal education, why are some schools teaching students more than other schools? Are the schools in violation of the Constitution?
Beach Fanatic
#92
American leaders pre-1900 would be horrified by the direction the federal government has taken in the last 100+ years. They understood that power concerntrated is inevitably power abused. The Department of Education is just one example of non-productive, expensive grabs for power. The best people to decide how to educate our children is the local school board, not some technocrat in Washington or Tallahasee.
Beach Comber
#93
American leaders pre-1900 would be horrified by the direction the federal government has taken in the last 100+ years. They understood that power concerntrated is inevitably power abused. The Department of Education is just one example of non-productive, expensive grabs for power. The best people to decide how to educate our children is the local school board, not some technocrat in Washington or Tallahasee.

The quandary the founders had was how to unite the colonies with a small but effective central government. They were united around fear of a powerful federal government but understood the need to be united around some causes and principles.

They believed that the larger and more powerful the central government became, the less freedom citizens would have. I don't think they ever envisioned the founding documents would used to create the mammoth federal government we have today.
Beach FanaticAuthor
#94
hkem1, by stating that anything not covered in the Constitution is covered by the States, is horse poop. If that were the case, pretty much everything would be considered, "Constitutional."

I don't see why this is so difficult of a concept to grasp. And i definitely don't see what it has to do with horse poop. :idontno:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I didn't write that, it's in the constitution. I don't know what you mean by "covered" but this amendment does not make everything constitutional.

It only means that the states retain certain rights that are not covered in the constitution. Note the phrase "[nor prohibited by it/B], so if it is against another part of the constitution the state cannot do it.

What do you think this amendment says? This is not usually a very debated amendment.

The issues surrounding this amendment are some of the most contested though with Gay marriage and Abortion.

Again, if every person is granted equal education, why are some schools teaching students more than other schools? Are the schools in violation of the Constitution?


DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, JUST READ THE CONSTITUTION.

no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

So yes, if one public school is teaching more than another public school then that means the state is in violation of the constitution. (unless it's a magnet or charter school)

What does the Supreme court say about this?
Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

SEE.. equal education is a RIGHT!!! I have been correct this entire time, but you will probably still find a way to question me... and the constitution...and the supreme court, but you probably know more than all of us. Right?

Edited

Beach FanaticAuthor
#95
The quandary the founders had was how to unite the colonies with a small but effective central government. They were united around fear of a powerful federal government but understood the need to be united around some causes and principles.

They believed that the larger and more powerful the central government became, the less freedom citizens would have. I don't think they ever envisioned the founding documents would used to create the mammoth federal government we have today.

First, the constitution was written because the drafters felt that the Articles of Confederation would never work because they did not create a strong enough central government.


Once again, people lump all the founding fathers in together and say they all believed in small government.

Which ones are you talking about?

There had been rebellions in the years leading up to the constitution being written and the government did not have the power to stop it. The drafters of the constitution were every bit as worried of tyranny from below, as they were tyranny from above

When the constitution was written a lot of government was not required. People lived far apart and on farms. Everyone was ok with racial segregation and sexism up the u know what.

But during the Gilded age, when markets began to grow and people started to interact with each other more than they ever had government was needed to protect its citizens.

Not to mention big government solved that whole segregation and women not having equal rights thing... but whatever.

One more thing, the Founding fathers set up the system of government that has allowed government to become what it is today. So as long as their system has been followed throughout history, they can't complain.

Edited

Beach Lover
#96
Wrong side of history? Obviously history has been rewritten.

I am a liberal because conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo, to keep the power w/ the current rich & powerful. The following battles were won by liberals vs. conservatives: The Magna Carta, slavery, segregation, child labor, 40 hr. work week, women's rights, reproduction rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare. What are the conservative victories that match these?

Hmm, "conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history".

Well, here some battles won by "constitutional conservatives" to consider: The Revolutionary War, Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War), World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

Then we can move on to "medical" wars that have been or are being fought by conservative "capitalists" that are being won: AIDS, Cancer, Polio, and numerous others.

These are just a few examples of "conservative" battle wins.

And in terms of segregation, one could hardly characterize one of the greatest patriots of our time, Doctor Martin Luther King, a "liberal". Especially since he gave up his life for others to be free. Dr. King believed in self-government based on truth and moral law as well that the importance of "faith-based" associations in an individual's and a communities' "life". If one reviews Dr. King's speeches and writings in detail, he was truly a conservative and believed in the rights bestowed upon all Americans as outlined in the Constitution. Dr. Kings efforts clearly "unwound" the grip of segration on Black Americans.

Liberals tend to "demand" freedom through "protest" and media battles, whereas constitutional conservatives will give up their lives to free "others" in a real battle field not matter its form. Dr. King is such an example.

Ugabugu might just want to dust off and review books that actually contain real historical facts before assigning liberal or conservative "wins" to a historical battle "event".
Beach FanaticAuthor
#97
Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War)

Lincoln must be considered one of, if not the greatest president this nation has ever had. His maintaining the union is so remarkable that he deserves the highest praise.

That being said, he was often criticized by radical republicans who did not think he was tough enough on slavery and human rights.

He was a very strong supporter in the lead up to his election of the "un-amendable amendment" (also known as the Corwin Amendment). That amendment would make it illegal for slavery to ever be outlawed in states where it already exists. The amendment actually passed the house and senate, but was never fully ratified by the states because it did not move fast enough. Although presidents don't really have any role in amending the constitution, Lincoln sent letters to governors encouraging them to ratify the amendment quickly before war would break out.

The amendment read, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Lincoln was more against the spread of slavery into new terrertories than, ending it in the south.

I think all this stuff that Lincoln did was really just to win the war and keep the union together. When he issued the emancipation proclamation it did not even apply to union states that had slaves (Kentucky and Maryland). He could not lose Maryland because then the Confederacy would surround Washington D.C. and Kentucky had a lot of valuable Railroads. Lincolns first goal was always to keep the union together, then to end slavery if he could. He said "If I could reunite the union without freeing one slave, I would. It was not until he saw the opportunity to cripple the southern economy by going after slavery, that he decided to make the war about "the new birth of freedom".

I love Lincoln, and I would call him the greatest president we have ever had because of his ability to keep the union together. But, there are many people with cleaner records on wanting to abolish slavery.
Beach Fanatic
#98
I am doing this for a school project and think it may be fun to do here on Sowal.

So why are you a (whatever you are).

P.S. before anyone thinks their creative and says "I am an American," of course you're allowed to do that, but I think it's against the spirit of democracy to just agree and end debate. Read what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers: there is supposed to be intense debate and chair throwing; but what makes our democracy great is that after all the intense debate we have peaceful transitions of power.
*******
Hkem1:

This OpEd piece today reminded me of your project. One of the big differences between the Rs and the Ds, is, IMO, the Ds are much more diverse and the Rs not so much. This info speaks to that and offers up so other interesting data:

Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/opinion/03blow.html?hp
Which political party?s members are most likely to believe that Jesus will definitely return to earth before midcentury? The Republicans, right? Wrong. The Democrats.
I

Edited

Beach Fanatic
#99
Hmm, "conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history".

Well, here some battles won by "constitutional conservatives" to consider: The Revolutionary War, Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War), World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

And in terms of segregation, one could hardly characterize one of the greatest patriots of our time, Doctor Martin Luther King, a "liberal". Especially since he gave up his life for others to be free. Dr. King believed in self-government based on truth and moral law as well that the importance of "faith-based" associations in an individual's and a communities' "life". If one reviews Dr. King's speeches and writings in detail, he was truly a conservative and believed in the rights bestowed upon all Americans as outlined in the Constitution. Dr. Kings efforts clearly "unwound" the grip of segration on Black Americans.

Ugabugu might just want to dust off and review books that actually contain real historical facts before assigning liberal or conservative "wins" to a historical battle "event".

Our disagreement--like many others--seems to be largely based on semantics: we are almost surely starting with different definitions of "liberal" and "conservative."

We seem to agree in applauding the outcomes of the Magna Carta, American Revolution, Civil War (freed slaves), Civil Rights (ended segregation), Women's Suffrage, child labor laws...etc. However, I call them victories for liberalism & you call them victories for conservatism.

My definition of "conservative" is one who wants to CONSERVE power for those who are currently powerful. A liberal, by contrast, wants to take power for himself or his group from those who have it.

By MY definitions then, the following are liberals:
those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta,
American Revolutionists,
women suffragettes,
those who fought for an end to slavery/segregation,
child labor, etc.
In all these cases, power was taken from those who had it, enhancing the power of those who had less.

So, all I mean by characterizing certain historical events as liberal victories, is that these events resulted in the migration of power from groups that had it to those who didn't.

I'd gladly entertain your definitions of liberal/conservative.
I'm sure that by some definition of Conservative, I'd call myself one.

Even though I consider myself a liberal, & you consider yourself a conservative, I'll bet we want basically the same things for ourselves, our families, our country & our world.

I'll bet if we could agree on definitions, we'd discover that we agree on most issues.
futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#100
I tend to think of liberal and conservative relative to individual rights.

I see conservatives as trying to conserve my individual rights and let me run my life.
I see liberals as working to transfer those rights to the government and reduce my ability to control my own life.

By my definition, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, Healthcare, DMCA, etc.. is a liberal.
Beach Fanatic
#101
I tend to think of liberal and conservative relative to individual rights.

I see conservatives as trying to conserve my individual rights and let me run my life.
I see liberals as working to transfer those rights to the government and reduce my ability to control my own life.

By my definition, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, Healthcare, DMCA, etc.. is a liberal.

Futurebeachbum,
I think you're on to something & I sorta agree.

In general, conservatives tend to be more concerned w/ individual rights, while liberals tend to be more concerned w/ society as a whole. Humans are social animals & will always live in societies.

Much of the liberal/conservative debate centers around how to strike the balance between individual rights & the overall good of society.

Although I consider myself a liberal, I think the Patriot Act is an unwarranted intrusion into my (our) individual private live(s); on the other hand , I think societies should insure that all its members have access to education, health care and legal protection.

I had to look up DCMA: best I could understand, the act criminalizes use of devices/technology/etc. that attempt to circumvent copyright & intellectual property protection laws. If I understand it correctly, I'd say DCMA is conservative in that it protects individual rights & doesn't give over those rights to society as a whole.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts