| Author | Message | ||
     Jerry_haughton |
Your debating skills rise far above mine. I believe what I believe. I'm not very good at listening to the other side because of their twisted perception of the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. You are a better man than I in that regard. Disagree, my brother - I've seen you in action, and I defer to your gift of grace and decorum under fire.  Interesting that Doug_s takes an emphatic shot at the likes of you and me, i.e. which is why there's so few folks here on the bwb that facts and reason can persuade, yet has so far declined my generous offer to send him to Constitution School on my nickel. Facts and reason, indeed. See ya soon, bro. FB1 | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
We have lost many a member due to political and religious discussions on this board. I wonder if they can hold a steady job | ||
| Blake |
FB, cherished old friend, It is not worth it. In a debating opponent, you'll be hard pressed to find any who more refuse actual thoughtful, respectful debate. Saul Alinsky reigns supreme for these types. They care NOTHING for disciplined analytical thinking. In the end, after numerous attempts and thousands upon thousands of words thoughtfully invested, you'll finally realize that their only interest is in maintaining their self-delusion. Anything that might threaten their delusion will be ignored. I've said it before and am happy to say it again. I despise such people. Trying to debate them is futile. Perfect example: You offer knowledge, a book. The refusal twists to inane analogy of cars on the freeway, then has the audacity to claim "You're going to disagree on some points with a lot of them, probably most.". The jackass is pretending to have considered the "points", knowledge and information, that you offer when in fact he has refused to even hear/read them. "And so the name calling begins." I despise you and all like you. Come here looking to once again engage in disrespectful debate, then darn right, be prepared for a harsh rebuke. "Notice in my post I never called Jerry any names. I didn't write that "there is no need to contribute" to Jerry's ideas. I wrote about the book that Jerry had posted about, not about Jerry personally." How might you write about a book that you refuse to read? What youdid was write about the author, and when you discovered that he was not part of a Progrssive/Sosialist approved cabal, you refused to consider his book. >>> I have different ideas than Jerry and others here do. So what? Why is that such a threat to you? To me, that's a sign of insecurity. It's a sign of someone who is not secure with their world view and so personally attacks anyone who disagrees with it. That's kind of sad. The insecurity is boiling over in anyone who refuses to debate on merits of information, choosing instead to ignore anything that might tend to oppose one's desperately nurtured political ideology. Sad it truly is. >>> It's takes all kinds to fill a freeway. Big difference though; none of the drivers are willfully blinding themselves to all but the traffic in their particular lane. Drivers wanting to travel West don't avoid checking the road signs for fear of learning that they are in fact traveling East. >>> You're going to disagree on some points with a lot of them, probably most. But that doesn't mean that you need to attack them personally. I attack your behavior; it is despicable. >>> People are different. It's what makes the world go round. I prefer the honest thoughtful ones. I despise the disrespectful dishonest ones. >>> Don't feel threatened by it. Clean up your act and I'll get off your case. I have a very good friend who is a major progressive Obama fanatic to the hilt. He and I REALLY enjoy discussing politics. He is honest, thoughtful, and respectful. We have a great time. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
FB, cherished old friend... Thank you, Blake - you don't know how good that sounds (well, except the "old" part..). Back atcha, amigo. Trying to debate them is futile. Perhaps. As I said above, I've not gone into battle with M2me or Doug_s before, and I thought my approach - sending them to the Constitution School on my nickel - was novel enough it might actually have some effect. Doug_s seems unable to rise to the challenge. His loss. I haven't given up on M2me, tho - so far he and I have exchanged respectful words, and I hope that tenor continues. The 5000-Year Leap may not change his mind about anything, but I'd be contented at this point if he at least gave it a fighting chance. Take care, FB | ||
| Sifo |
Even having a debate with a closed minded person can have more effect than you might imagine. There are plenty of people that will lurk in these threads. State your views and back them with facts and sound logic. Non-participants will read it and be swayed. These are most likely the people on the fence that have an open mind anyway. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Unfortunately nearly every discussion devolves into a fit of yelling past one another. There is only one reality. Both sides believe they have the corner on that reality. It's like debating the color of the sky with one of the people being colorblind and being unaware. | ||
| Buellkowski |
You'll please forgive some of us who are skeptical of Mr. Skousen's ability to think rationally and objectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen This is the second anti-communist-era publication (the other being Atlas Shrugged) that has been cited in BWB political threads recently as eye- and mind-opening literature in defense of conservative principles under attack by the current administration. Both books appear to have also recently been proffered by Glenn Beck. I, for one, cannot remember ever reading a book an entertainer suggested I read. | ||
| Sifo |
So why the personal attack on Cleon Skousen? Is it because it was written in what you describe as an anit-communist era or because Beck says he liked it? Was Beck an entertainer a couple years ago when he was rightly criticizing GWB on CNN? | ||
| Blake |
Glen may be entertaining, but he is a LOT more than just an entertainer. Good effort with the alinsky approach though. Really miserable ignorant stuff. For the record, my friend Jerry thoughtfully recommended the book. I for one plan to read it. Call me silly if you must; I appreciate knowledge. I can hardly tolerate reading fiction these days; just finished a book that really surprised me. It taught me a LOT. A God Who Hates by Wafa Sultan, a woman who grew up in Syria, then emigrated to America. Very gripping and informative. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Sifo, in my syntax "skepticism" does not constitute a "personal attack." Please let me know if you believe anything I posted mischaracterizes Mr. Skousen. I think Glenn Beck is an entertainer, no matter who he criticizes. | ||
| Reindog |
"Atlas Shrugged" is often mistaken as a story about Communism. That is too simplistic a viewpoint. AS is the story of an devolving society where individual effort is punished until the economy collapses. It is prophetically similar to precisely what is happening to America today. In a way, Catch-22 has thematic similarities to AS but wildly different styles. Think about it. Kowski, have you ever watched Beck or read one of his books? "Arguing with Idiots" is germane to what goes on in this neck of the Badweb Woods. Yust because you have been told Beck is bad and evil, doesn't necessarily mean that Beck is bad and evil. If you haven't done so, try listening for yourself. I listen to Maddow and Matthew and have reached my own conclusions by not listening to other's opinions of how I should yudge Maddow and her gang. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, in my syntax "skepticism" does not constitute a "personal attack." Please let me know if you believe anything I posted mischaracterizes Mr. Skousen. First the words you used were... You'll please forgive some of us who are skeptical of Mr. Skousen's ability to think rationally and objectively. That goes far beyond simple skepticism. Either way it's an attack on his person, not his work, so yes it's a personal attack. Yes I do feel that it is a miss-characterization of Skousen. Based solely on the period of his writing and that an entertainer as you put it liked it, lacks any credibility at all. How does the reader of any material diminish the material itself. Beck also recommends reading the Constitution. It to was written long ago. I guess the writers of the constitution also lacked the ability to think rationally and objectively. See the problem with your logic? | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Jeremy - Unfortunately nearly every discussion devolves into a fit of yelling past one another. True enough, but it shouldn't. It seems painfully easy to be rude on the Internet, to say something spiteful or hurtful that would probably NEVER be said to someone's face. A little courtesy and respect goes a long way. There is only one reality. Both sides believe they have the corner on that reality. My reality is the Constitution of the United States of America. I suspect you feel as strongly as I do that the Founding Fathers never desired a government as smothering and omnipotent as what we're facing now, not after how hard they worked to shake off a similarly distasteful regime back then. Take care, Ferris | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
I, for one, cannot remember ever reading a book an entertainer suggested I read. How 'bout a book a fellow motorcycle rider suggests you read? Same offer as the others: Buy it, ya don't feel you got your money's worth, and I'll cover the cost. Act now; this is a limited-time offer. FB | ||
| Reindog |
Is the offer only good to the fresh water pirates? I think I understand why Lefticles are getting their panties all twisted up as a result of the Wiki article. Skouson does appear to be from the far right but I will reserve judgment until I read the book. If I can read Alinsky, Cleaver, and Marx from the Left, then I am not afraid to read Skouson like some here seem to be. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I like Beck, and in that vane I would encourage you to read the original sources. read the Communist Manifesto, the Marxist anthologies of Che Guevara, Lenins' The development of Capitalism in Russia, Stalins' New Economic Policy and the first Five Year Plan; and of course Mao with his 'On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.' Read the original sources, never trust the wiki or talking head summaries and the shiate is truly visible from the doorstep. of course I had to read them as they were my major back in the day. If you wanted to know what the enemy was up to, you read his lit-propoganda; I never thought I would see it coopted into mainstream American culture. Truly f'n sobering, and depressing. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I prefer Andrew Wilkow to Beck. My reality is the Constitution of the United States of America. I suspect you feel as strongly as I do that the Founding Fathers never desired a government as smothering and omnipotent as what we're facing now, not after how hard they worked to shake off a similarly distasteful regime back then. Absolutely. The Constitution is the only legal contract in which the provisions change depending upon who reads them. This was NEVER the intent of the framers. The Constitution was written in plan language to be read EXACTLY as written. If you didn't like a provision or found the document to be too limited, you AMENDED it. The Supreme Court was designed not to make law but to interpret whether a law was or was not part of the 18 enumerated powers of the Federal Government. If a law wasn't SPECIFICALLY provided for in the Constitution, it was found to be "unconstitutional". Period. Anything not SPECIFICALLY found in the Constitution was to be left to the states (10th Amendment). Another good read is Liberty and Tyranny. | ||
| M2me |
The Constitution is the only legal contract in which the provisions change depending upon who reads them. This was NEVER the intent of the framers. That was the EXACT intent of the framers. Article one, section 8 says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It also says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce. What does it mean to provide for the general welfare? What does it mean to regulate commerce? There is no one right answer. It's kind of loosey goosey. The framers intended it that way. We the people elect representatives to Congress. Congress writes laws under the framework of the Constitution. If someone wants to challenge a certain law they can through the courts. The courts listen to the arguments from both sides and then decide or judge (that's why they're called judges) which side argued their point the best. The people, the legislative, the judicial are always interpreting the Constitution, a lot of time conflicting with each other. That's how our system of government works. There is no one right answer and the framers knew that. We've got to hash it out amongst ourselves. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but most of the time we compromise. This is the beauty of our Constitution and why it's lasted for so long. It's strength comes not from the strictness of the enumerated powers of Congress, but from the loosey gooseyness of them. They're SUPPOSED to be interpreted in different ways and then debated by the people. Then we get to vote and hope our candidate wins. Our candidate doesn't always win but there will be another election not too far in the future and we can vote again. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There is no need to have enumerated powers (limited powers) if people can openly read into the Constitution any power they want to. The Constitution was never meant to be popularly interpreted. Why do you think that Amendments required a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/4ths majority of the states? Why have such a HIGH burden if you could just interpret into the language of the Constitution whatever you want? Name a single other legal contract in the US that was designed to have open interpretations and is a "living document". | ||
| Buellkowski |
I accept, Ferris. Reserving my library's copy now. | ||
| Reindog |
Way to go, kowski! The library is the perfect way to go and I forgot to try that avenue. I spent a lot of time of my funemployment at the library. Don't forget to reserve your copy of AS while you are there. | ||
| M2me |
Why do you think that Amendments required a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/4ths majority of the states? Because we the people elect members of Congress and members of our state legislatures. The framers put in a high burden of amending the Constitution because it wouldn't be good if an individual or a small group of individuals could amend it. It can certainly be amended, but you will need the support of a lot of the people to do it. | ||
| M2me |
The public library is cool. I'll check it out. I read all kinds of weird stuff that you might not think I do. I've read Ayn Rand. I think I even have a copy of The Fountainhead somewhere around here. I even tried reading Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard about 30 years ago. I only got about a third of the way through it before I decided it was a bunch of gibberish. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
because it wouldn't be good if an individual or a small group of individuals could amend it. Exactly!!!! Now it's starting to become clear!!! The framers never intended the Constitution to be reinterpreted via judicial fiat. By allowing the language of the Constitution to be malleable you allow 5 people (out of nine) to over ride 536 people in the creation of law. The intent was to create checks and balances between the branches. Under an interpretive Constitutional model, all of the power rests with the judiciary. Again, though, WHY BOTHER ENUMERATING THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF YOU COULD JUST READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION ANY POWER YOU WISH? If the power of the Federal Government is only limited by the interpretation of the party in power, are there really any limits on the powers of the Federal Government? | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
I accept, Ferris. Reserving my library's copy now. Thank you, sir. FB | ||
| Doug_s |
jerry, the fact that i refuse to take up your offer has nothing to do with "refusing to go to constitution school on your nickel", as you put it. it has everything to do with the fact that i am not comfortable having relative strangers buy me stuff on the internet.. i may in fact purchase the book; as i said before, it seems an interesting enough read. now, if you are really interested in going to constitution school, read it from those who actually wrote the constitution, not some neo-conservative religious zealot. check out "the federalist papers". i happened to study constitutional law, in undergrad and grad school... (that should make some of you "credentials buffs" happy. or not...) regarding the glass steagall act and what its repeal's effect was on the banking and housing industry, i think it is clear that the co-mingling of commercial banking with investment banking has caused traditional banks to take on risky loans and derivatives, which is akin to gambling. buying and selling mortgages at a ridiculous rate was part of this. even tho institutions like aig, which got bailed out, may not have been directly involved in specific trades which got them into trouble, it is the increased complexity and interconnecting of the entire global financial system that caused the total system meltdown, and this was, in a large part, driven by commercial banking going speculative... was fannie & freddie going speculative also a large contributor? absolutely. but that doesn't mean the glass-steagall repeal wasn't also partly responsible... doug s. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
neo-conservative religious zealot Harsh words, sir. Necessary? I'll read the Federalist Papers. Thank you for the suggestion. FB | ||
| Sifo |
It's strength comes not from the strictness of the enumerated powers of Congress, but from the loosey gooseyness of them.
M2me, We had a revolution fought over tyrannical rule. If you do some in depth reading about what their grievances were one of the big ones was that they weren't living under a clear system of laws. You brought your issues into the court system where a judge would make a decision. The problem was that the next judge might decide something completely differently. The system was arbitrary. Please see the above definition of Tyranny. This is exactly what the leaders of the colonies described as tyranny. The intent of the Constitution was to NOT be arbitrary (loosey goosey), but to provide for a system of laws that sets a clear path of right and wrong. It set forth a system where the Federal Government was limited to specific items. The rest was to be left to individual states to govern. Loosey goosey is the exact tyranny that caused us to break from King George. Then you wonder why there are people today pondering if a second revolution will happen? | ||
| Sifo |
Doug_s Congratulations! The more we discuss this the more you are backtracking on the influence of Glass-Steagall. You've made it from being the cause to being partly responsible. That's progress! was fannie & freddie going speculative also a large contributor? You still seem to be missing something. The real problem wasn't Fannie & Freddie being speculative. The real problem was encouraging individuals to be speculative in purchasing their housing. That is the root cause of the whole mortgage crisis. It wasn't until individuals were defaulting in large numbers that we had a crisis. Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with that. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Very nice online source for studying the Federalist Papers: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html |
