USA's government, not people, make it great

[Piggy]

The other night, I heard Mitt Romney reiterate that old saw:

It's not the government that makes our country great, it's the people who make it great. The American people are our strength.

I say, hogwash.

Now, I'm not one of those "America is the greatest nation ever" kind of people. There's a lot to criticize, don't get me wrong.

But that said, there's a lot to love about it, too. And one cannot deny that it's a great nation in many senses of the word.

But it's not the people that make it so.

I don't see that we are any more kind, hard-working, intelligent, or creative than people elsewhere.

The strength of this nation comes from the form of government we enjoy -- despite its flaws and frequent excesses.

Sure, we're only a couple hundred years old, but we have the longest-lived extant constitution on the planet, if I'm not mistaken. And we've proven remarkably resilient and self-correcting through turmoil, and have even managed to correct some of our most eggregious errors, such as slavery, without destroying ourselves.

Hokey as it sounds, it's those fundamentals we studied in civics class that are our strength -- Constitutional government, elections, checks and balances, due process, etc.

Lately, you hear a lot of talk about government per se being the problem. Today's deluded anarchists are not leftist laborers, but capitalist free-marketeers, who've bought into the myth that government is inherently bad.

I say they're wrong, and Mitt's wrong.

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

[JoeEllison]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

[Piggy]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

Agreed. I keep hoping to hear more about that as the election cycle grinds on.

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

[skeptical]

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

I tend to agree with this, the one exception being that many Americans have a deep seated desire for personal liberty, despite their willingness to let it slip away for short periods of time.

But other than that, yes, I think your right. We stand on the shoulders of political giants, and reap the rewards of a system that was designed to the greatest extent possible to function well even when run by idiots.

A good question is how long a representative system can function when those that it represents are uneducated, apathetic, hyper commercialized, religiously overzealous morons. (man, I am in such a mood today)

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The strength of this nation comes from the form of government we enjoy -- despite its flaws and frequent excesses.

Sure, we're only a couple hundred years old, but we have the longest-lived extant constitution on the planet, if I'm not mistaken. And we've proven remarkably resilient and self-correcting through turmoil, and have even managed to correct some of our most eggregious errors, such as slavery, without destroying ourselves.

Hokey as it sounds, it's those fundamentals we studied in civics class that are our strength -- Constitutional government, elections, checks and balances, due process, etc.

Lately, you hear a lot of talk about government per se being the problem. Today's deluded anarchists are not leftist laborers, but capitalist free-marketeers, who've bought into the myth that government is inherently bad.

I say they're wrong, and Mitt's wrong.

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

This is an interesting point. I'd have to ponder it for quite a while to figure out if I agree with everything you said, but it is certainly true in many respects. I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes. The system of government is what is the major strength. And you're right on that point. In fact, the system was set up with a mind specifically towards mitigating the flaws inherent in... people.

[JoeEllison]

Agreed. I keep hoping to hear more about that as the election cycle grinds on.

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

I don't understand why we don't hear ANYTHING about it from 95% of the politicians and media. The Bush administration has claimed that the presidency is completely above the law, and no one seems all that concerned... probably BECAUSE OF the media, and their idiot profit-driven non-journalism. They would rather talk about anything besides a real issue, for fear of losing a single viewer. I mean, really, they treat the American people like a bunch of easily distracted non-thinkers... non-think... Britney did what?!?!

I...ummm... I gotta go! :cool:

[WildCat]

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"
What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

[Piggy]

I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes.

Good point.

And indeed, the philosophy I'm criticizing in a subpoint of the OP is the notion that the system, not the persons in office, is "the problem".

For the free-market anarchists, that system is "in the way" of a better arbiter of human affairs, the free market.

For the Chrisian theocrats, it's in the way of the only correct arbiter of human affairs, the Will of God.

That's why those philosophies are, to my mind, dangerous, because they seek not just to place their representatives into office, but -- once they're there -- to replace the current system with something very different.

That's a sidetrack to the main idea of the OP. But the notion that the system itself is wrong and the people are the true strength of the nation is one of the ideas that helps fuel those movements, as well as other movements that are not so indisious.

[Piggy]

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

I'm not going to get into that b/c it would derail the thread.

If anyone wants to assert that Bush has not, in fact, done anything of the sort, I won't argue. Because that particular point is not strictly relevant to the OP.

For the purposes of this thread, consider it merely my opinion.

[Kerberos]

This is an interesting point. I'd have to ponder it for quite a while to figure out if I agree with everything you said, but it is certainly true in many respects. I would caution, however, between talking about "the government" and "the system of government," just for clarity purposes. The system of government is what is the major strength. And you're right on that point. In fact, the system was set up with a mind specifically towards mitigating the flaws inherent in... people.
That is a valid point, but I think that another important consideration is political culture. Something that is at least as important as political structures, and political culture cannot be seperated from the population. IMO the question of whether is is the people or the governement that makes the US, or any nation, great cannot be answered meaningfully, because you can't really seperate the two.

[Piggy]

That is a valid point, but I think that another important consideration is political culture. Something that is at least as important as political structures, and political culture cannot be seperated from the population. IMO the question of whether is is the people or the governement that makes the US, or any nation, great cannot be asnwered meaningfully, because you can't really seperate the two.
I disagree, because I think one of the brilliant aspects of the founders' vision was indeed to separate "the man from the office" and to put some brakes on populism.

That doesn't always happen (just look at my state's current Speaker, for instance) but the system tends to keep the counter-tendency in check.

And it's that system which, in my opinion, is responsible for the endurance of this nation and its ability, over 2 centuries, to purge itself of some of its worst institutions while not destroying itself in the process, although it has come close.

If the political culture turns, and this separation of office and office-holder is chucked out the window, or populism is allowed to hold sway, then we're really in trouble.

[technoextreme]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.
Ehhhh.... It's cyclic though Bush by far hasn't done enough to make him the worst president ever. I would say that honor goes to Hoover.

[Ladewig]

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?

The executive branch used get the approval of someone in the judicial branch before executing a wire-tap warrant. The people asking for a warrant would have to show probable cause, as per the Constitution. Because the information used in applying for these warrants sometimes came from highly classified operations, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978 to allow people in the executive branch to apply for warrants in cases where the information, while still reliable, came from sensitive sources, such as undercover CIA agents.

The Bush administration has sometimes executed wiretaps without warrants approved by the judiciary.

[Kerberos]

I disagree, because I think one of the brilliant aspects of the founders' vision was indeed to separate "the man from the office" and to put some brakes on populism.

That doesn't always happen (just look at my state's current Speaker, for instance) but the system tends to keep the counter-tendency in check.

And it's that system which, in my opinion, is responsible for the endurance of this nation and its ability, over 2 centuries, to purge itself of some of its worst institutions while not destroying itself in the process, although it has come close.

If the political culture turns, and this separation of office and office-holder is chucked out the window, or populism is allowed to hold sway, then we're really in trouble.

The seperation between office holder and office never did exist. If you could actually do that they'd just have instituted the American Constitution in Iraq an declared mission accomplished, and it would have been true. Unfortunatly the real world is a great deal more complicated than that.

As for the political culture turning, political cultures can be extremely robust. If you really though that the institutions alone was what mattered, then how do you account for succesfull democracies sich as Denmark or the UK that don't have similar institutional safeguards as the US? I'm not denying that institutions matter, just that they're all that matters.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Actually, one of the great properties of America is that it takes people from other countries and governmental systems and allows them their measure of influence.

It's easy to forget how crucial immigration has always been to America's success. So in a sense I guess I'm agreeing with Romney -- the people are a large part of our greatness... especially those who came from beyond our shores.

Er... so maybe I'm not agreeing with Romney.

[Thorn]

Ayn Rand is turning in her grave.

[Darth Rotor]

Ayn Rand is turning in her grave.

That is kind of her, it gives the worms a shot at an undevoured clump of rotting, moldy flesh.

Piggy, the anarchists you posit are plutocrats, or oligarchs, depending upon how you want to apply those two terms. They need structure, but their aim is to dictate the structure on their terms, which an anarchist will not, by principle.

FWIW, enjoyed your OP.

Mitt, Mitt
Went and quit

My guess: His wife looked him in the eye and pointed out to him that he wasn't spending other peoples' money, but family money, on a failing campaign. I am guessing she wants to still be a woman in a wealthy family when the election cycle is over, rather than having slid down the rung of relative wealth along the way. Guessing that when she pointed that out, he woke up and realized she was right, and then acted accordingly.

Just a guess. :)

DR

[rissablue]

The American people... pretty much like folks everywhere else.

The American government... with all its problems, a damn good arrangement.

I agree with you on this. It's nice to say the American people are what make the nation great. It boosts morale and makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside. However, I think now it's actually being raised with the ideals of The Great Nation that allows for the people to be so great. I'm pretty sure that immigrants risk life and limb to be here because of our system more than the people.

[rjwould]

You have to consider the source too, Piggy..
This is the same Mitt Romney who said he wanted to unite the republican party but has still not endorsed McCain..

This guy was the most dangerous person in the race on either side...We all should be grateful he is out of it....I only hope we never hear from him again.

And, I agree with the premise of your op too..:)

[Beerina]

The People, in crafting a constition that creates this wonderful government, gave it limited powers, and none others, reserving all freedoms to themselves.

This allows the country to be great because the people, living their lives and pursuing their goals freely, make it great. So the premise of this thread is right and wrong at the same time.

[Michael Redman]

A wise Republican once described our system as "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Romney is spouting a modern Republican lie that our government is some entity disconnected from and in opposition to the people. This pervasive lie is becoming self-actualizing, as people start to feel that they are subject to government, and not the other way around. Perpetuating this lie is irresponsible and dangerous to our liberty.

[Ziggurat]

I don't see that we are any more kind, hard-working, intelligent, or creative than people elsewhere.

The strength of this nation comes from the form of government we enjoy -- despite its flaws and frequent excesses.

Let me suggest an alternative reading for Romney's comments: people are just people, our government is what distinguishes us, but it's the fact that our government is less involved in people's lives than most governments which allows the people to do more and accomplish more than other countries. In this reading, it's still the people who make our country great, not government, even if it is differences in government and not people which distinguishes us from other countries.

Now, you may or may not agree with that evaluation, but I think it's a lot closer to what Romney probably meant than what you're implying.

[dudalb]

I don't understand why we don't hear ANYTHING about it from 95% of the politicians and media. The Bush administration has claimed that the presidency is completely above the law, and no one seems all that concerned... probably BECAUSE OF the media, and their idiot profit-driven non-journalism. They would rather talk about anything besides a real issue, for fear of losing a single viewer. I mean, really, they treat the American people like a bunch of easily distracted non-thinkers... non-think... Britney did what?!?!

I...ummm... I gotta go! :cool:

That evil profit driven media.It would be so much better if the State took it over and ran it on a non profit basis for the benefit of The People.

[Piggy]

The seperation between office holder and office never did exist. If you could actually do that they'd just have instituted the American Constitution in Iraq an declared mission accomplished, and it would have been true. Unfortunatly the real world is a great deal more complicated than that.

As for the political culture turning, political cultures can be extremely robust. If you really though that the institutions alone was what mattered, then how do you account for succesfull democracies sich as Denmark or the UK that don't have similar institutional safeguards as the US? I'm not denying that institutions matter, just that they're all that matters.

I think you need to read my post just a little more closely.

I have not said that the separation is absolute, or even always observed, or that the institutions alone are what matter.

Thanks.

[Piggy]

Piggy, the anarchists you posit are plutocrats, or oligarchs, depending upon how you want to apply those two terms. They need structure, but their aim is to dictate the structure on their terms, which an anarchist will not, by principle.

I'm not so sure.

I don't know what the political landscape is like where you are.

Where I am, there's a rising tide of late -- mostly among small-town businessmen, hinterland politicos, blue-collar talk radio fans, and such -- who have bought into the simplistic notion that government is inherently bad and that the "free market" always (always!) provides a better solution.

But yeah, I'm using the term "anarchist" very loosely here, perhaps to the point of metaphor.

[Piggy]

You have to consider the source too, Piggy..
This is the same Mitt Romney who said he wanted to unite the republican party but has still not endorsed McCain.

To be fair to Mr. Romney, I have to say that his comments were the catalyst that got me thinking.

My interest in the topic stems more from the growing chorus I hear from other quarters.

But it sure makes a great applause line, doesn't it?!

And the more it's repeated by presidential candidates, talk radio pundits, and the like, the more legitimate it appears to those who would adhere to it.

[Piggy]

The People, in crafting a constition that creates this wonderful government, gave it limited powers, and none others, reserving all freedoms to themselves.

This allows the country to be great because the people, living their lives and pursuing their goals freely, make it great. So the premise of this thread is right and wrong at the same time.

Let me suggest an alternative reading for Romney's comments: people are just people, our government is what distinguishes us, but it's the fact that our government is less involved in people's lives than most governments which allows the people to do more and accomplish more than other countries. In this reading, it's still the people who make our country great, not government, even if it is differences in government and not people which distinguishes us from other countries.

Now, you may or may not agree with that evaluation, but I think it's a lot closer to what Romney probably meant than what you're implying.

Well said.

[Elizabeth I]

Ehhhh.... It's cyclic though Bush by far hasn't done enough to make him the worst president ever. I would say that honor goes to Hoover.

Interesting. More so than Harding, FDR or Nixon?

[JoeEllison]

Ehhhh.... It's cyclic though Bush by far hasn't done enough to make him the worst president ever. I would say that honor goes to Hoover.
I wish you were right... I REALLY wish you were right.:(

[Piggy]

Interesting. More so than Harding, FDR or Nixon?

FDR?

The man who led us out of the Great Depression and to victory in WWII while battling polio?

The man who appears on just about every historians' list of Greatest Presidents?

That FDR?

[BPSCG]

The People, in crafting a constition that creates this wonderful government, gave it limited powers, and none others, reserving all freedoms to themselves.

This allows the country to be great because the people, living their lives and pursuing their goals freely, make it great. So the premise of this thread is right and wrong at the same time.I.E., the People got the one Big Thing right, so they can get a lot of little things wrong.

I can grok that. We'll see how well that holds up after Obama's elected.

[New Ager]

A wise Republican once described our system as "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Romney is spouting a modern Republican lie that our government is some entity disconnected from and in opposition to the people. This pervasive lie is becoming self-actualizing, as people start to feel that they are subject to government, and not the other way around. Perpetuating this lie is irresponsible and dangerous to our liberty.

High taxes, land taken, welfare, socialized school system and others items do make people feel that we have an intrusive gov't. With the threat of socialized medicine with the next liberal nominee, government interference may reach a new high and liberty may be dying.

[New Ager]

That evil profit driven media.It would be so much better if the State took it over and ran it on a non profit basis for the benefit of The People.

I think liberals want the gov't to take over everything they disagree with.

[New Ager]

You are so wrong about the gov't being great and not the people.

America is a great country partly because of the people, but more so because God has blessed this nation.

Our Constitution, the greatest document every written, was divinely inspired. But, people have kept the spirit of it alive despite the attempts of liberals and socialists to define America in their warped terms.

Americans love their country more than others in the world and they will fight to the death to defend it.

Patriotism, love of country, love of God is what has sustained this country through it's darkest times, but these things will inevitably free it from the chains of ignorance and arrogance of those who destroy us.

[kallsop]

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"


If only we could pick and choose which Federal government excesses to keep or throw out. If it were a straight choice, I'd keep the stuff that impedes terrorists and throw away the junk that keeps us poor and indebted such as the Social Security ponzi scam.

[Cain]

You cannot separate the Constitution from the populace, the political culture. People are naive to think that some document alone, in itself, can prevent tyranny. This is the kind of hokum libertarians often spout when it comes to their rigid separation of Free Market and government. What matters is that the Constitution lives in the hearts and minds of people, and appeal to that document carries a lot of weight.
Fred: "Well, The Constitution says blah blah blah blah blah."
Jimbo: "OK, you win."

It works in the United States because people are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the Founding Fathers had some grand over-arching vision for society. Never mind 21 out of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy, or the obvious compromises built into the Constitution (3/5, no export taxes, slave trade ends in 1808, the structure of the bicameral legislature).

The Constitution can be viewed as a paternalistic document when we look at, say, the qualifications for running for elected office. Do you distrust people to elect someone under the age of 35 to the Presidency? Can we not trust the people to elect someone who was born in another country? The Father-knows-best elitist-guardian mentality can especially be seen in the Electoral College and the election of Senators (until the 17th Amendment). (See Madison's argument in _The Federalist Papers #51_.)

Republicans are interesting characters in that they rail against government, but they basically buy into the notion that government should not be questioned. Well, government should not be questioned when it's spying us, prosecuting wars, conducting secret, illegal wars, and so on, but when we're talking about providing health insurance to sick children -- oh dear Lord, "New Ager" is gonna have a conniption fit. My goodness, the threat to liberty is grave indeed. Let's put on our whiny voices: "think about the children."

Jefferson wanted lots of Constitutional conventions and did not **** himself over Shays' rebellion ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time," revolution every 25 years, etc). Madison's counter-argument is succinctly stated in Federalist #49:

every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.

This is because common people are vulnerable to their passions (or "appetites" as Plato argued). In Federalist 51 Madison famously says, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But of course something like three-quarters of Americans believe in Angels, so #49:

The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ancient as well as numerous, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

[rdaneel]

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"Perhaps you should submit the question to Brainsters Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105880), He may get the chance to ask McCain.

[Piggy]

High taxes, land taken, welfare, socialized school system and others items do make people feel that we have an intrusive gov't. With the threat of socialized medicine with the next liberal nominee, government interference may reach a new high and liberty may be dying.

Except that our taxes are low, private schools are allowed, no candidate has proposed socialized medicine, and the only one proposing a single-payer health system has dropped out.

The real intrusion is coming from the gov't's attempt to assert a right to secretly monitor our emails, phone calls, etc. without any oversight whatsoever.

Agreed on the abuse of eminent domain.

[Piggy]

You are so wrong about the gov't being great and not the people.

America is a great country partly because of the people, but more so because God has blessed this nation.

Our Constitution, the greatest document every written, was divinely inspired. But, people have kept the spirit of it alive despite the attempts of liberals and socialists to define America in their warped terms.

Americans love their country more than others in the world and they will fight to the death to defend it.

Patriotism, love of country, love of God is what has sustained this country through it's darkest times, but these things will inevitably free it from the chains of ignorance and arrogance of those who destroy us.

Is this a joke, or do you really believe that?

I mean, that bit about Americans loving their country more than anyone else, what basis could anyone have for making a statement like that? A: None.

[Piggy]

What matters is that the Constitution lives in the hearts and minds of people, and appeal to that document carries a lot of weight.

Indeed. The old adage is 100% correct -- the Constitution cannot defend itself. It also cannot enforce itself. We must defend it, we must enforce it.

I just wish more people these days actually knew what was in it. :mad:

[SezMe]

My guess: His wife looked him in the eye and pointed out to him that he wasn't spending other peoples' money, but family money, on a failing campaign. I am guessing she wants to still be a woman in a wealthy family when the election cycle is over, rather than having slid down the rung of relative wealth along the way. Guessing that when she pointed that out, he woke up and realized she was right, and then acted accordingly.
I'd add that the kids also saw daddy pissing away "their" money and assisted mom in the backbone department.

[SezMe]

America is a great country partly because of the people, but more so because God has blessed this nation.

First off, this assertion has no basis whatsoever. How, exactly did god bless this nation? Which god?

Secondly, one of the more enlightened concepts underlying our national principles is that of a secular government. If god's blessings are so important to the greatness of the country, wouldn't it stand to reason that god would want religion to play a significant (dominant?) role?

Our Constitution, the greatest document every written, was divinely inspired.

Can you point to the divinely inspired parts and specify exactly what would be different if god had not dipped his hand into the cookie jar?

But, people have kept the spirit of it alive despite the attempts of liberals and socialists to define America in their warped terms.

Constitutional damage has been done by politicians at all points on the political spectrum. That same range of other politicians have done yoemans work to restore it. To think that one side of the aisle is pure is the height of blind politican partisanship.

Americans love their country more than others in the world and they will fight to the death to defend it.

As noted by Piggy, such arrogance is stunning. You can't have traveled much. Nor have you taken an ounce of effort to note the brave men and women from every country arouond the globe and into the mists of time who have bravely fought for their own homeland.

Patriotism, love of country, love of God is what has sustained this country through it's darkest times, but these things will inevitably free it from the chains of ignorance and arrogance of those who destroy us.[/quote]
Which can be said for most other nations.

[proxywar]

This thread reeks of A brave new world, State is better for you, trust in the state, center around the state. The Nanny state will take care of your needs, trust in big brother. In Soma we trust,theres no pain and suffering here. This thread feels like I'm stuck in A brave new world dialogue between John The Savage and Mustapha Mond.

[Piggy]

This thread reeks of A brave new world, State is better for you, trust in the state, center around the state. The Nanny state will take care of your needs, trust in big brother. In Soma we trust,theres no pain and suffering here. This thread feels like I'm stuck in A brave new world dialogue between John The Savage and Mustapha Mond.

How bizarre.

I can't find any such tendency in this thread, which has (for the most part) been a lively discussion regarding the relative roles of the structure of government -- to combat the extremes of autocracy on the one hand and populism on the other -- and the responsibilities and contributions of a politically aware and active citizenry.

I don't see anyone championing a Nanny State or blind faith in office-holders.

Your post reeks of paranoia and knee-jerk reaction, I'm afraid.

[Bob Klase]

FDR?

The man who led us out of the Great Depression and to victory in WWII while battling polio?

The man who appears on just about every historians' list of Greatest Presidents?

That FDR?

The man who put (by executive order) 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans (of which over 70,000 were US citizens) in prison camps without any trial, appeal or any other constitution protections?

That FDR?

[New Ager]

Republicans are interesting characters in that they rail against government, but they basically buy into the notion that government should not be questioned.



LOL!! When there's a good reason to, not for political purposes.



Well, government should not be questioned when it's spying us, prosecuting wars, conducting secret, illegal wars...



Like I said, not for political reasons. None of those things happened. That was just liberal's distortion of events so they could disagree with a conservative.



..and so on, but when we're talking about providing health insurance to sick children -- oh dear Lord, "New Ager" is gonna have a conniption fit. My goodness, the threat to liberty is grave indeed. Let's put on our whiny voices: "think about the children."



Socialized medicine simply doesn't work and it's not what America is about.

And why does the gov't need to get into the insurance business?

Why not let people be self sufficient and responsible for their own lives?

And conniption fits are what liberals have been doing for the whole Bush administration.

[New Ager]

Except that our taxes are low, private schools are allowed, no candidate has proposed socialized medicine, and the only one proposing a single-payer health system has dropped out.



Our taxes are still too high. Plus, our tax system is broke and needs to be fixed.

Most can't send their kids to private school so they get the liberal indoctrination.

And Hillary and Obama both have national health care on their agenda. Where have you been?



The real intrusion is coming from the gov't's attempt to assert a right to secretly monitor our emails, phone calls, etc. without any oversight whatsoever.



To catch only terrorists. Again, with the distorted liberal viewpoint.

Don't you ever get tired of bashing your country for political purposes?



Agreed on the abuse of eminent domain.

There's hope for you yet. :)

[New Ager]

Is this a joke, or do you really believe that?

I mean, that bit about Americans loving their country more than anyone else, what basis could anyone have for making a statement like that? A: None.


I believe everything I say.

And yes, Americans are more patriotic than any other country. And the basis is personal experience.

[New Ager]

If only we could pick and choose which Federal government excesses to keep or throw out. If it were a straight choice, I'd keep the stuff that impedes terrorists and throw away the junk that keeps us poor and indebted such as the Social Security ponzi scam.

Ahhh, somewhat smart and caring about America.

Most liberals want us to be nice to terrorists and strengthen the ponzi scam.

This is why we don't want them in leadership positions in our country.

[Piggy]

The man who put (by executive order) 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans (of which over 70,000 were US citizens) in prison camps without any trial, appeal or any other constitution protections?

That FDR?

Yes, that FDR. I didn't say he was Jesus. But one of the "worst presidents"? Please.

[Piggy]

None of those things happened. That was just liberal's distortion of events so they could disagree with a conservative.

Wow. You obviously are not familiar with history. The government's own records demonstrate that they did happen. For example, the CIA has been involved in secret wars for half a century, according to their own now-declassified documents, and those of the FBI and Pentagon.

You know, you ought to try finding facts first. I know it's quicker to skip that step, though -- perhaps you're short on time?

[Piggy]

Our taxes are still too high. Plus, our tax system is broke and needs to be fixed.

Most can't send their kids to private school so they get the liberal indoctrination.

And Hillary and Obama both have national health care on their agenda. Where have you been?

Funny how Bush ignored the recommendations of his own commission on tax reform, who advised to radically simplify the tax system. Unfortunately, that would not allow Bush to grant targeted tax breaks, which he so loves to do.

True, most can't send their kids to private school. But the option is there, as is home schooling. Public school is not socialized education. Parents are not allowed to fail to educate their kids, but they're not given public schools as the only option.

And yes, all candidates are talking about health care. None of them are talking about socialized medicine, or even a single-payer system (now the DK is out).

You obviously have no clue what these concepts are that you're tossing around.

[Piggy]

I believe everything I say.

And yes, Americans are more patriotic than any other country. And the basis is personal experience.

You've been everywhere? Damn! You must be tired.

[New Ager]

First off, this assertion has no basis whatsoever. How, exactly did god bless this nation? Which god?



No basis?!? Look at all great things this country has.

And there is only one God.



Secondly, one of the more enlightened concepts underlying our national principles is that of a secular government. If god's blessings are so important to the greatness of the country, wouldn't it stand to reason that god would want religion to play a significant (dominant?) role?



Faith in God does play a significant role in the people.



Can you point to the divinely inspired parts and specify exactly what would be different if god had not dipped his hand into the cookie jar?



It was all divinely inspired and without God, there would be no Constitution.



Constitutional damage has been done by politicians at all points on the political spectrum. That same range of other politicians have done yoemans work to restore it. To think that one side of the aisle is pure is the height of blind politican partisanship.



I don't recall saying that. Arguing a point I didn't make.



As noted by Piggy, such arrogance is stunning.



I know my own country.



You can't have traveled much. Nor have you taken an ounce of effort to note the brave men and women from every country arouond the globe and into the mists of time who have bravely fought for their own homeland.



That's not required to make the statement I made.

So, requiring me to make a statement that isn't needed.

Patriotism, love of country, love of God is what has sustained this country through it's darkest times, but these things will inevitably free it from the chains of ignorance and arrogance of those who destroy us.


Which can be said for most other nations.

This one more than others.

[New Ager]

This thread reeks of A brave new world, State is better for you, trust in the state, center around the state. The Nanny state will take care of your needs, trust in big brother.

Yep, the gov't needs to get you a job, health insurance, medical care, school tuition, etc. because we are helpless and stupid and we can't take care of ourselves.

Liberals really think this.

What happened to self reliance, hard work and making good choices?

Why when people fail on the pathway of life is the gov't supposed to bail them out?

[Piggy]

To catch only terrorists.
Riiiiight. Like Nixon's activities were in the interest of national security.

(In case you've forgotten, his illegal activities had nothing to do with national security, but were designed to silence his political opponents.)

Wake up, pal.

Bush has asserted the right to hold anyone anywhere, even US citizens, indefinitely without trial merely on the basis of an accusation.

And keep in mind, if he can do it, so can President Hillary.

Under Bush's vision of Presidential Power, if Hillary gets in the White House, she should have the right to merely declare you an enemy and lock you up without a trial, access to an attorney, hebeas corpus, nothing, and keep you there til you die.

Also keep in mind that Bush has lied about his administration's activities at every turn.

First he said there were no warrantless wiretaps. But there were. Then he said there was no unfiltered bulk surveilance. But there was. Etc etc etc.

And the worst of it is, such practices actually hinder the fight against terrorism. They encourage laziness and slopiness. Instead of having to actually figure out what's really going on and who's who, we can simply round up the usual suspects. History shows that this approach not only results in imprisonment of the innocent, but also allows many of the guilty to escape.

And those innocents, and their families, who could have been our allies, instead come to hate us and join the other side.

Don't you ever get tired of bashing your country for political purposes?

First of all, I'm not a Democrat or a liberal. I vote for Dems, Pubs, Independents, whoever I think will do the best job in office. Believe it or not, some people are not partisans.

Second, I don't agree that my government is my country, and I surely don't agree that the executive branch is my country.

By pointing out abuses of the Constitution by certain people in power, I am not "bashing my country". I am trying to preserve it.

I love my country, but not in the way you do. You love your country the way a four year old loves his mommy.

And because of that, you are easily made into a tool of those who would attempt to usurp power for themselves.

However -- back to the OP -- if the Constitution works, they will fail in the attempt.

And that's indeed what we're seeing.

The remaining presidential candidates are not extremists -- all those have been winnowed out.

Unlike you, the majority of people in this country are tired of the gridlock, the lies, the secrecy, the incompetence, on both sides of the aisle.

And the point of my OP is that, imo, it is the resilience of our great Constitution which allows such corrections of abuse to occur.

[Piggy]

Most liberals want us to be nice to terrorists

Name one.

Or do you believe Muslim = terrorist?

[Piggy]

Btw, if this discussion strays totally away from the OP and turns into an argument about liberalism, religion, and such, I will ask the mods to move those posts out of the thread.

Keep it on topic, please.

Thanks.

[New Ager]

Wow. You obviously are not familiar with history. The government's own records demonstrate that they did happen. For example, the CIA has been involved in secret wars for half a century, according to their own now-declassified documents, and those of the FBI and Pentagon.



Weren't we talking about the Bush Administration? How did we get back 50 years ago? And you didn't address the rest of the post so I guess you were distorting those facts.



You know, you ought to try finding facts first. I know it's quicker to skip that step, though -- perhaps you're short on time?

You mean like Bush trying to wiretap terrorists and not private citizens.

[New Ager]

Funny how Bush ignored the recommendations of his own commission on tax reform, who advised to radically simplify the tax system. Unfortunately, that would not allow Bush to grant targeted tax breaks, which he so loves to do.



Imagine that, giving tax breaks to those who pay the most taxes.



True, most can't send their kids to private school. But the option is there, as is home schooling.



Many can't do that either.



Public school is not socialized education. Parents are not allowed to fail to educate their kids, but they're not given public schools as the only option.



If one can't afford private schools or have no ability to home school, that is their only option.

Plus, most school systems dictate which school one can attend. If one doesn't like their teaching, their is no choice.

As close to socialism as we get in this country.



And yes, all candidates are talking about health care. None of them are talking about socialized medicine, or even a single-payer system (now the DK is out).



The only reason to talk about it is to install some form of socialized medicine. And that's what liberals are all about. Did you forget about Hillary care in the 90's?

[New Ager]

Riiiiight. Like Nixon's activities were in the interest of national security.

(In case you've forgotten, his illegal activities had nothing to do with national security, but were designed to silence his political opponents.)



Nixon??!?! When did he get into the discussion?

Okay, so more of arguing points I haven't made.



Wake up, pal.



I'm not the one running all over the century looking to back up lame comments by talking about dead Presidents.



Bush has asserted the right to hold anyone anywhere, even US citizens, indefinitely without trial merely on the basis of an accusation.



No, they were terrorists or basically enemy combantants.

More of that distortion of Bush.



And keep in mind, if he can do it, so can President Hillary.



Hillary will probably invite them for a White House brunch.



Under Bush's vision of Presidential Power, if Hillary gets in the White House, she should have the right to merely declare you an enemy and lock you up without a trial, access to an attorney, hebeas corpus, nothing, and keep you there til you die.



I guess it doesn't pay to be a terrorist.

I'm sorry, but my heart isn't bleeding for them.



Also keep in mind that Bush has lied about his administration's activities at every turn.



More distortion of Bush.



First he said there were no warrantless wiretaps. But there were. Then he said there was no unfiltered bulk surveilance. But there was. Etc etc etc.



Distortion of events.



And the worst of it is, such practices actually hinder the fight against terrorism. They encourage laziness and slopiness. Instead of having to actually figure out what's really going on and who's who, we can simply round up the usual suspects. History shows that this approach not only results in imprisonment of the innocent, but also allows many of the guilty to escape.



Yeah, because liberals are so good at fighting terrorism.



And those innocents, and their families, who could have been our allies, instead come to hate us and join the other side.



Innocent terrorists?!?!??! I guess to liberals if you disagree with the President you are innocent.



First of all, I'm not a Democrat or a liberal. I vote for Dems, Pubs, Independents, whoever I think will do the best job in office. Believe it or not, some people are not partisans.



And yet, you speak like a liberal and believe the whole liberal spiel.



Second, I don't agree that my government is my country, and I surely don't agree that the executive branch is my country.



It is when they are fighting a war.



By pointing out abuses of the Constitution by certain people in power, I am not "bashing my country". I am trying to preserve it.



When it's to further political agenda in a time of war and only that agenda is important and not our troops, it is.



I love my country, but not in the way you do. You love your country the way a four year old loves his mommy.



And yet, you talk like a four year old.



And because of that, you are easily made into a tool of those who would attempt to usurp power for themselves.



No, I defend my country in a time of war. I don't blindly follow a political agenda to hurt my country like liberals do.



The remaining presidential candidates are not extremists -- all those have been winnowed out.



Hillary? Obama? You are really in the tank for the Dems, aren't you?




Unlike you, the majority of people in this country are tired of the gridlock, the lies, the secrecy, the incompetence, on both sides of the aisle.



I think people are just tired of liberalism. Of course, many liberals like to hide who they are.

[New Ager]

Some liberals want us to be nice to terrorists.

Name one.

Or do you believe Muslim = terrorist?

Let's see...

"Let's don't interrogate those terrorists with waterboarding to save our country. Get them a lawyer."

"Don't hold those terrorists at Guatanamo, get them a lawyer and bring them to the states."

Those liberals.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed. I keep hoping to hear more about that as the election cycle grinds on.

If I could ask the candidates one question, it would be, "Do you pledge to roll back the excessive and unconstitutional powers which Bush has usurped from the other branches?"

I would add, Do you plan to purge all the Bush appointees in the Justice Department and put the experienced non-partisan career lawyers back?

[Skeptic Ginger]

What powers did Bush usurp from other branches?You either know and are in denial or you have been living in a cave.

But out of respect for Piggy's answer this is a thread hijack question, I'll leave it at that. Start a new thread however, if you care, and I'll be happy to discuss the obvious with you.

[Piggy]

And you didn't address the rest of the post so I guess you were distorting those facts.
You guess? I recommend fact-checking instead of guessing. But that's because I'm a skeptic.

You mean like Bush trying to wiretap terrorists and not private citizens.
I hate to say this, but your ignorance is showing.

Bush violated FISA, despite the fact that FISA allowed retroactive warrants up to 72 hours after the fact. To justify his illegal activities, he claimed that he needed absolute power to wiretap with no oversight in order to respond quickly, but you can't get any quicker than retro-active approval.

So, the only possible justification for the action was that he was wiretapping people who he felt the courts would not allow him to wiretap. And the FISA courts reject warrant requests extremely rarely.

In fact, Bush had approved unfiltered bulk wiretaps on American citizens.

Everyone in Washington wants to keep track of terrorists and legitimate terror suspects. Dems and Pubs alike. Despite the lies of certain partisans who claim the other side -- for utterly inexplicable reasons -- actually wants people to come here and kill us.

But Bush has proven himself incompetent. His attitude is, round 'em up, wiretap everyone, and we'll separate the wheat from the chaff later.

This is dangerous.

Ok, enough of the current events lesson.

The reason I bother to dive into all this is that I think it proves my point in the OP.

Fortunately, we have a Constitution which, if followed, corrects such abuses. And that is the strength of America.

But, as others have pointed out, this only works if the citizens care.

If everyone had your attitude, we'd slide quickly into tyrrany, as there would be no one to insist that the law be followed.

But I still stand generally by the OP. I think folks around the world want justice, just as much as we do. Sadly, many are prevented from having it by brutal regimes. Sadder still, some people in other nations (as well as some here) actually want totalitarianism.

My point is, because it is our Constitutional system of government which is the strength of our nation, we cannot allow it to be thrown aside.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Where I am, there's a rising tide of late -- mostly among small-town businessmen, hinterland politicos, blue-collar talk radio fans, and such -- who have bought into the simplistic notion that government is inherently bad and that the "free market" always (always!) provides a better solution....There are more than a few skeptics who also buy into this unsupportable belief, and Michael Shermer's latest book espouses it through and through. It got him bumped off my hero list.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread reeks of A brave new world, State is better for you, trust in the state, center around the state. The Nanny state will take care of your needs, trust in big brother. In Soma we trust,theres no pain and suffering here. This thread feels like I'm stuck in A brave new world dialogue between John The Savage and Mustapha Mond.You are confusing a good governmental system with a totalitarian governmental system. The two could not be further apart.

[Piggy]

Let's see...

"Let's don't interrogate those terrorists with waterboarding to save our country. Get them a lawyer."

"Don't hold those terrorists at Guatanamo, get them a lawyer and bring them to the states."

Those liberals.

Who are you quoting? I'm not familiar with anyone who has expressed those exact sentiments -- those are distortions of opinions which have been expressed publicly.

Also, you fail to recognize the following

1. Opponents of waterboarding are not soft on terrorism. They object to it because, first, torture is not a reliable means of extracting reliable intelligence, and second, our engaging in torture puts our soldiers at risk -- not from the terrorists, who are going to engage in horrific acts anyway, but from fence-sitters for whom our actions are actually meaningful. In other words, they believe it's a net loss in the war on terror.

2. Although there certainly are terrorists in Gitmo, without habeas, we don't know which ones are terrorists and which ones aren't, and that's dangerous, for reasons I've already explained. The problem with Gitmo is that the current administration is attempting to use it as a Constitution-free zone (back to the OP -- we need the Constitution!) in order to warehouse people they sweep up -- and some that were literally bought from people who simply showed up with them in tow -- without having to actually figure out what's what. And that's a good way to lose the war on terror.

People who oppose waterboarding and support habeas for Gitmo detainees are doing so because they want to defeat terror, and they believe (rightly, imo) that sloppy and careless and incompetent means of waging that battle should be stopped and replaced by more effective means.

[Piggy]

Ok, I've tried to bring the tangents back to the OP, but some don't want to go there.

Please post only on-topic.

If irrelevant derails continue, I'll ask the mods to move them.

Please be respectful.

If anyone wants to discuss other topics -- such as the conduct of the war on terror, liberal politics, etc. -- without reference to the OP, please start a new thread.

I will no longer respond to off-topic posts, since I've not been able to bring them back to the subject of the thread.

Thanks.

[UserGoogol]

This thread reeks of A brave new world, State is better for you, trust in the state, center around the state. The Nanny state will take care of your needs, trust in big brother. In Soma we trust,theres no pain and suffering here. This thread feels like I'm stuck in A brave new world dialogue between John The Savage and Mustapha Mond.

It's the people who say the United States's people who make it great who are the collectivists. "The people" but a collection of individuals united by nothing more than living in the same place and be ruled by the same government. To attribute the goodness of a nation to a collection of individuals united by nothing but an accident of birth (immigrants might be an exception because they choose to be here) is absurd. The People are better for you, trust in The People, center around The People. The People will take care of your needs. Trust in The People.

That said, there is an excluded middle between saying that America is great because of our country and saying it is great because of "our people." It could be the non-governmental institutions which America has, for instance. I don't know if this is the case though, since when America creates a good institution, it can spread to other countries. Although other governments have picked up some ideas from our government, it requires an act of annexation for another country to fully embrace our government in the way they might embrace our other institutions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

New Ager, your view of reality is quite distorted. It amazes me people can see the world through such distorted lenses.

For example, the judicial system having oversight over the President's actions is not something that interferes with the President's ability to prevent terrorist acts. The oversight is to prevent the human nature of a person in a powerful position from abusing that power. Nixon abused his position of power to cheat on the election.

Why would getting a warrant for those wiretaps stop the wiretaps? Bush claimed there wasn't time. Turns out he could wiretap first, get the warrant second so that was not a reason warrants were interfering with legitimate reasons to wiretap. But Bush let that reply die by not responding. Wiretaps continue, no warrants, no one presses Bush anymore about getting the warrants, and people like yourself can only recall Bush saying he needed warrantless wiretapping to fight terrorism. You don't seem to recall the warrants are to protect us from our government spying on us. The warrants have nothing to do with some fantasy that liberals would have us protecting terrorist rights.

Why would a government spy on its citizens? There are only two reasons. To suppress dissent and manipulate elections.

Bush has demonstrated the same behavior replacing all the Department of Justice people with party henchmen. The fired attorney scandal faded away when Gonzales fell on his sword. But the henchmen (and women) quietly remain. The voter disenfranchisement schemes based on false claims of massive voter fraud found their way into federal election law and the public doesn't seem to have noticed.

These activities of wiretapping, and abuses in the Justice Department initiated by the President's administration and top Republican Party operatives were disclosed, a bit of scandal ensued, very little happened and they now continue sans limelight.

-

I see the government and the people as key players in our system. If the public doesn't object to abuses of power like Bush's and Nixon's then the system itself is not enough. People have to object when Congress ignores its oversight role. I think that is clearly happening. People can't wait to get rid of Bush. We don't know yet if it will be just another group of rulers on the animal farm or whether the system will recover.

I think the system will function as long as the public has access to information. I think that is an integral part of our system of government. The oversight of the public is just as critical as the checks and balances within the government. And they need to have free access to information about the government if the people are to provide their part of the oversight.

In addition to Bush's abuse of power within the system, the science of persuasion, the past lessons learned about keeping things secret and the concentration of broadcast ownership have increased the ability for leaders who want to abuse their power to do so.

Bush has tight control over the White House Press Corp, there is control of information coming out of Iraq, there is Rupert Murdoch who admits to a belief that control of the news content is fine with him and so on. I don't mean to imply a conspiracy here. Rather, Bush, his admin, and the Republican Party have become very adept at controlling and manipulating information. At the same time, the broadcast news has become a commodity, not a source of information. Some of corporate America has also become adept at controlling information. Look at Exxon's campaign to suppress the science of global warming.

There are many many aspects to this and it's hard to cover them all in a post. It may seem like I am ranting about multiple disconnected issues. The bottom line is people have to oversee the government, we need the governmental system we have to make that possible, if there weren't checks and balances then the people wouldn't have a chance of keeping their oversight role. And as important, is the part that a culture of an information savvy public plays in keeping everything functioning properly. Fortunately the Internet came along just as broadcast sources of information are fading. We'll be fine unless the powers that be gain control of Internet information access. Hopefully that won't happen.

[Piggy]

Skeptigirl, how would you summarize your last post relative to the OP? I see how it pertains, but a recap would be helpful to get us back on track.

To all posters: Thanks for the insights! I would ask all reasonable posters here to please not allow the thread to turn into a harangue over left and right. Please do us all a favor and ignore irrelevant posts (or split them off into new threads for further discussion) and let us get back to the role of gov't and citizens.

Thanks again.

Your loving and adoring son -Piggy

[SezMe]

Aw, Piggy loves me. Gives me the warm and fuzzies all over.

Believe me, I'd like to show New Ager how he's wrong on point after point. But I'll honor your request after one quick shot.

No, they were terrorists or basically enemy combantants.
Approximately 5% of people held by the military in Iraq were actually enemy combatants. Most (~90%) were based on bribes.

About 50% of people held in Gitmo (some for years) were eventually released with no charges having been filed.

If there are any non-USAians still reading this thread who wonder where the stereotype of a "southern redneck" comes from, New Ager is the poster boy.

Now to the OP: I agree with a point made upthread. It is the form of government created by the constitution - especially the idea of three branches checking on the others - combined with an informed and involved citizenery that makes the USA work.

[Piggy]

Now to the OP: I agree with a point made upthread. It is the form of government created by the constitution - especially the idea of three branches checking on the others - combined with an informed and involved citizenery that makes the USA work.
And I think New Ager's posts actually contribute here, in a way he never intended, to illustrate that point.

The Constitution cannot endure if people do not do their homework, if we indulge in political ideology, fail to fact-check the political bloviators, and turn a blind eye to corruption of the law. If we all took New Ager's path, it wouldn't take long for our rights to be wiped out.

But although I agree essentially with this "middle path" view that's emerging on this thread, I still lean toward my original idea in the OP, and here's why.

I think in every nation, you have those who are more willing to be told what to think, and those who are more willing to think for themselves.

It is only when you have, not only a limited government, but a self-limiting government, that the independent spirit can hold sway, through wars and hard times and disasters, for centuries.

But it's hard to argue, on the other hand, the the American form of government could work everywhere.

So there must be something in the American character that is a good match with our form of government -- representative democracy, trial by jury, due process, separation of powers, a secular state, etc.

And I think it's largely a phenomenon of history. Here we had widely disparate groups who, in their colonial period, had to be enormously resourceful and inventive, and who then had to find a way to form a government that allowed them to get along despite their often conflicting views of the world, and of what is good.

Perhaps only rare circumstances such as those the colonies found themselves in -- at the right time in history, when Englightenment values were the philosophical fashion, and laymen could still make significant contributions to science -- permit the formation of such a system of governance.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, how would you summarize your last post relative to the OP? I see how it pertains, but a recap would be helpful to get us back on track.

To all posters: Thanks for the insights! I would ask all reasonable posters here to please not allow the thread to turn into a harangue over left and right. Please do us all a favor and ignore irrelevant posts (or split them off into new threads for further discussion) and let us get back to the role of gov't and citizens.

Thanks again.

Your loving and adoring son -PiggyI tried to, maybe it was buried in my thousand things I had to say on the matter.

...people have to oversee the government, we need the governmental system we have to make that possible, if there weren't checks and balances then the people wouldn't have a chance of keeping their oversight role. And as important, is the part that a culture of an information savvy public plays in keeping everything functioning properly. Fortunately the Internet came along just as broadcast sources of information are fading. We'll be fine unless the powers that be gain control of Internet information access. Hopefully that won't happen.

So, while the pandering speech, "Americans are great" is just that, typical voter rally speech, you can't just have the American system of government alone. On the other hand, if you didn't have they system we do have with the checks and balances, the people would have little power to stop a runaway dictator.

And if we lose control of true freedom of information, (not just free speech) then the people won't have the tools they need to keep a runaway dictatorship from developing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even with our freedom of speech, and the government system of checks and balances, and people who understand what is needed to keep the government functioning properly, those would be runaway dictators could still develop as the people in power continually develop ways to thwart our system of checks and balances. Since it's not too hard to get the sheeple behind you, we could still lose it all.

Consider we've had many a leader who would be dictator if they could. Nixon and Bush certainly had/have the ethics to overturn our basic democratic principles, and I'm sure they are the rule, not the exception. Bush's and Rove's, et al, overt attempts to manipulate the electoral process rather than simply earn more votes have been documented. (I posted the extensive evidence in a recent thread.)

Propaganda is certainly not new, but I do believe the techniques are becoming more and more sophisticated all the time. The sheeple are nothing new and if you can get enough sheeple to follow you, even the people who remain aware and think for themselves cannot stop those in power. Look at the history of such movements from the Crusades to Hitler, to Mao.

McCarthyism and the Red Menace are two examples in this country where leaders were able to get the sheeple to give them more powers than the system of checks and balances includes. And that is most definitely the case with Bush and his use of the Terror Menace to thwart our Constitutional system of government. New Ager is an example of a sheeple letting the checks and balances slide supposedly to lessen a threat. Whether the threat is real or not, Bush has not made the case it warrants an exception to judicial oversight. Yet New Ager believes it does.

So the system matters a lot. But it can't be maintained on just the 'rules' on paper. You can't take the people out of the mix.

[proxywar]

How bizarre.

I can't find any such tendency in this thread, which has (for the most part) been a lively discussion regarding the relative roles of the structure of government -- to combat the extremes of autocracy on the one hand and populism on the other -- and the responsibilities and contributions of a politically aware and active citizenry.

I don't see anyone championing a Nanny State or blind faith in office-holders.

Your post reeks of paranoia and knee-jerk reaction, I'm afraid.

What hospital may I pick up my soma script from?

No need to get harsh with the name calling.
Like Jay-z said: I call a spade a spade, it is what is.

[proxywar]

It's the people who say the United States's people who make it great who are the collectivists. "The people" but a collection of individuals united by nothing more than living in the same place and be ruled by the same government. To attribute the goodness of a nation to a collection of individuals united by nothing but an accident of birth (immigrants might be an exception because they choose to be here) is absurd. The People are better for you, trust in The People, center around The People. The People will take care of your needs. Trust in The People.

complete government controlled collectivism worked out well for lenin hey? I don't hate the separate individuals in america, for Americans are like individual organisms making up a superorganism, who just happen to hate collectivist expanding government. Why the horrible semantics? Accident of birth, joke right? immigrants choosing to be here is absurd? Nice reactionary responds mr.despot.

That said, there is an excluded middle between saying that America is great because of our country and saying it is great because of "our people." It could be the non-governmental institutions which America has, for instance. I don't know if this is the case though, since when America creates a good institution, it can spread to other countries. Although other governments have picked up some ideas from our government, it requires an act of annexation for another country to fully embrace our government in the way they might embrace our other institutions.

America the nation was created by the people for the people. These people now americans continue to make it great. It's the expanding federal government the people of america think is abusing it's balance of power. So us meaning the people of america have a choice to make about this necessary evil called expanding federal government. Give it complete control or find a more innovative path for our institutions. Listen, I'm all about being a multilineal evolutionary thinker, which is why I know russian people were great when their communist government wasn't. You seem to want to embrace the old institutions of other countries in a new packaged unwilling to label it what it really is sort of way. I'm saying the people of america are more innovative than cheating off the kids test next to us.

[Thorn]

If the Constitution is divinely inspired, Civil Defense lawyers are the heavenly host...yet...I often hear the exact opposite. The Bill of Rights is divine by no means, and to be honest, it's the pinnacle of humanity, in my opinion.

[Billdave2]

Indeed. The old adage is 100% correct -- the Constitution cannot defend itself. It also cannot enforce itself. We must defend it, we must enforce it.

I just wish more people these days actually knew what was in it. :mad:

That is why it is the people and not the government that makes this country great. What would happen in most counties if you simply substituted forms of governement with out any other changes? Do you think Nigeria wouldbecome great overnight? How about most middle eastern countries, would they become great or would the people reject their new government?

ETA: In the words of a great american "the scariest thing you will ever here is "I'm from the governemnt and I am here to help you"".

[UserGoogol]

complete government controlled collectivism worked out well for lenin hey? I don't hate the separate individuals in america, for Americans are like individual organisms making up a superorganism, who just happen to hate collectivist expanding government. Why the horrible semantics? Accident of birth, joke right? immigrants choosing to be here is absurd? Nice reactionary responds mr.despot.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said it is irrational to lump together the individuals who are Americans except for immigrants, because they have the common quality that they all chose to be here and thus must have something in common. Otherwise, the only thing that for instance you and I have in common by virtue of both being American is that we happen to live in the same tract of land and are both subject to the laws of the Federal government.

I don't think we should have "complete controlled government collectivism." The government should exist merely to facilitate individuals being able to do whatever it is that they, as individuals, want to do and prevent things from happening to them (like being murdered or whatever) that they, as individuals, do not want done to them.

America the nation was created by the people for the people. These people now americans continue to make it great. It's the expanding federal government the people of america think is abusing it's balance of power.

I'm a person and I'm American, but I don't think this. (Well, I think that the Federal Government has abused its power in some areas, but not the same areas that you're thinking of I don't think.) Does this mean I'm not part of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? The American people are not a superorganism. We are a collection of three hundred million people each with our own beliefs, thoughts, and ideas. To treat this collection as a single entity is the fricking definition of collectivism, and it is that which is at the heart of fascism.

I'm saying the people of america are more innovative than cheating off the kids test next to us.

The last of the founding fathers died out over a century ago. Rather then cheaing off the kids test next to us, we are all cheating off the test of the kid who took the test last year. The only difference is that we are sitting in the same chair as that kid (metaphorically speaking).

It is the person that matters, not where they happen to sit.

[kallsop]

I do believe in the old saying "people are the same wherever you go". What is good about the US government is that it originally left a lot of power and liberty to the citizens, with most power at the local and state level. This has eroded over time (income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ...) with the ascension of Federal power and the US is definitely drifting towards being just another mediocre socialist nation with a bunch of too powerful career politicians redistributing the diminishing wealth in the best interest of buying votes.

[Piggy]

What hospital may I pick up my soma script from?

No need to get harsh with the name calling.
Like Jay-z said: I call a spade a spade, it is what is.

No, I think you're calling a fork a spade.

As for the "name calling", I did not intend the references to paranoia and knee-jerk reactions as epithets. I meant them literally.

Your posts do appear to be driven by both tendencies, given that you're condemning ideas that have not actually been expressed and utterly failing to provide any support for your views, instead merely asserting that you're somehow "telling it like it is".

[Piggy]

I do believe in the old saying "people are the same wherever you go". What is good about the US government is that it originally left a lot of power and liberty to the citizens, with most power at the local and state level. This has eroded over time (income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ...) with the ascension of Federal power and the US is definitely drifting towards being just another mediocre socialist nation with a bunch of too powerful career politicians redistributing the diminishing wealth in the best interest of buying votes.

I have to agree with you on the rise of federal power.

As for these "socialist" tendencies which are popular to talk about these days, all I have to say is, y'all really need to go overseas and live in some socialist countries so you understand that the USA is light years away from socialism.

And given the current political flavor of the day, the chances of socialism erupting onto the American political landscape anytime soon are about as good as my chances of getting propositioned by Scarlett Johansen.

[Elind]

Well, it used to be, before the Bush administration took a crap on the Constitution. Now, it is in pretty serious jeopardy.

Do you think that is an original thought; looking back the past few hundred years?

[Piggy]

Do you think that is an original thought; looking back the past few hundred years?
Exactly. Which is what continually draws me back to the proposition in the OP.

I find it extremely difficult to argue that something special in the character of Americans is what has allowed our society to repeatedly meet challenges to our freedoms, and in fact to expand those freedoms.

That's a real tough argument to make. What would such a thing be? And why would it be absent elsewhere? How could it persist across 200 years of deaths, births, and demographic and cultural changes?

Yet when we examine the fundamentals of our system, which have endured intact all this time, we can see how the provisions it makes for a broad framework of freedoms within self-correcting limits provides a practical mechanism for restraining the tendencies toward populism and autocracy.

[WildCat]

2. Although there certainly are terrorists in Gitmo, without habeas, we don't know which ones are terrorists and which ones aren't, and that's dangerous, for reasons I've already explained.
Since when do enemies captured in a war get that right? Provide historical precedents please.

[WildCat]

Approximately 5% of people held by the military in Iraq were actually enemy combatants. Most (~90%) were based on bribes.
Cite?

About 50% of people held in Gitmo (some for years) were eventually released with no charges having been filed.
What a silly thing to say! You don't charge captured enemies with crimes, in fact it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions to do so unless you have evidence of war crimes or other such violations of the rules of warfare. Lacking that, you can hold them as long as you see fit, up until the end of the war if you so desire. How many captured German soldiers in WWII were charged with crimes? Or had a writ of habeus corpus?

[Piggy]

Since when do enemies captured in a war get that right? Provide historical precedents please.
Well, that's the problem with Gitmo. Lots of those guys were turned in by bounty hunters for the standing reward for anyone claiming to have people of interest.

They didn't have time to do triage, so they took them all and sorted them out later.

Lots of them have been released.

"Sorry about the five years of your life spent in a cage, Ali. Take care, and don't be a stranger!"

[Piggy]

You don't charge captured enemies with crimes, in fact it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions to do so unless you have evidence of war crimes or other such violations of the rules of warfare. Lacking that, you can hold them as long as you see fit, up until the end of the war if you so desire. How many captured German soldiers in WWII were charged with crimes? Or had a writ of habeus corpus?
But even the administration isn't claiming that these guys are POWs. They're attempting to take a middle ground, to simply declare these people "bad guys" by fiat, and hold them in a law-free zone.

But hey, I'm violating my own rule, here.

So....

If you're interested in this topic, start another thread.

It's off-topic if we cannot relate it back to the OP.

Please drop this issue or move it, or I'll have to ask the mods to move it.

Thanks for understanding.

[WildCat]

Well, that's the problem with Gitmo. Lots of those guys were turned in by bounty hunters for the standing reward for anyone claiming to have people of interest.
And why were they taken to Gitmo when so many were never taken from Afghanistan?

They didn't have time to do triage, so they took them all and sorted them out later.
Nonsense. The vast majority of enemies captured in Afghanistan never went to Gitmo, only the ones deemed to be of special interest were.

Lots of them have been released.

"Sorry about the five years of your life spent in a cage, Ali. Take care, and don't be a stranger!"
Maybe they'll have second thoughts before rejoining the Taliban after that? They get released if they are deemed no longer likely to fight us again.

You still haven't shown how any of this was illegal or improper.

[Piggy]

Take it outside, Wildcat, take it outside.

[WildCat]

But even the administration isn't claiming that these guys are POWs.
They're not. POW has a very specific definition per the Geneva Conventions, it's a legal term. The Taliban did not meet the legal requirements necessary to qualify for POW status.

If you're interested in this topic, start another thread.
I let it go, you kept bringing it up. Not my fault if you derail your own thread.

[Piggy]

I already admitted that I took the bait and shouldn't have, but now I'm reminding you that this is off topic. Start a new thread, please.

[WildCat]

Take it outside, Wildcat, take it outside.
Stop repeating these claims in this thread to make your points and no one will contest them here.

It's not me derailing, it was you. And you started it in the OP! :rolleyes:

[Piggy]

Fine, Wildcat. I concede the point to you. I will not contest your argument. After all, it doesn't make or break the issue we're talking about here.

[Piggy]

It's not me derailing

I know. To clarify, and make sure I'm being fair to you, when I said "I took the bait" I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the tangential discussion, which you were quoting when you cited my post, that I got involved in earlier. That wasn't clear, and I apologize.

I admitted back then that I was involved in a derail, and I've admitted that again, and I admit it now a third time.

Hey, I ain't Jesus. I screw up, too.

So, no harm, no foul? Point goes to you, ok. Seriously, I'm not going to attempt to argue against your points, here. I just want to move on.

[Elind]

Exactly. Which is what continually draws me back to the proposition in the OP.

I find it extremely difficult to argue that something special in the character of Americans is what has allowed our society to repeatedly meet challenges to our freedoms, and in fact to expand those freedoms.

That's a real tough argument to make. What would such a thing be? And why would it be absent elsewhere? How could it persist across 200 years of deaths, births, and demographic and cultural changes?

Yet when we examine the fundamentals of our system, which have endured intact all this time, we can see how the provisions it makes for a broad framework of freedoms within self-correcting limits provides a practical mechanism for restraining the tendencies toward populism and autocracy.

And what my previous comment was directed at was the thought that there have never been similar "crisis" of "bad government" in the past. The sky is always falling for some at any given time in history, and history shows that our particular form of government has a proven robustness in dealing with such fears.

As to why, it is worth remembering that the USA, more than any other nation on the planet, is actually made up of the people from every nation on the planet, and uniquely so.

[Piggy]

And what my previous comment was directed at was the thought that there have never been similar "crisis" of "bad government" in the past. The sky is always falling for some at any given time in history, and history shows that our particular form of government has a proven robustness in dealing with such fears.

Yup. I was concurring.

[Piggy]

As to why, it is worth remembering that the USA, more than any other nation on the planet, is actually made up of the people from every nation on the planet, and uniquely so.

Wow. The planet's a lot whiter than I thought, then.

[gumboot]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

[gumboot]

Exactly. Which is what continually draws me back to the proposition in the OP.

I find it extremely difficult to argue that something special in the character of Americans is what has allowed our society to repeatedly meet challenges to our freedoms, and in fact to expand those freedoms.

That's a real tough argument to make. What would such a thing be? And why would it be absent elsewhere? How could it persist across 200 years of deaths, births, and demographic and cultural changes?

Yet when we examine the fundamentals of our system, which have endured intact all this time, we can see how the provisions it makes for a broad framework of freedoms within self-correcting limits provides a practical mechanism for restraining the tendencies toward populism and autocracy.


I hate to burst your bubble, but 200 years is nothing. Heck, the inhabitants of Easter Island (who managed to wipe themselves out through a stupid religious practise that required bucket loads of trees) managed to maintain civilisation for between 600 and 1400 years.

If the USA manages to survive 500 years it might be worth taking note of, and if it can last 1,000 it might even be considered impressive.

[Piggy]

I hate to burst your bubble, but 200 years is nothing. Heck, the inhabitants of Easter Island (who managed to wipe themselves out through a stupid religious practise that required bucket loads of trees) managed to maintain civilisation for between 600 and 1400 years.

If the USA manages to survive 500 years it might be worth taking note of, and if it can last 1,000 it might even be considered impressive.

Well said. (No bubbles to burst here, btw.)

As I said in the OP, I'm not one of the "we're the greatest there ever was" crowd.

But it's hard to argue that the USA is not a "great nation" in many senses of the term. Even if we collapse after only another century, we will remain much more than a footnote in history.

[Piggy]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

I find that claim totally unsupportable. As if the democratic US and, say, communist Cambodia were six of one, half dozen of another.

[sackett]

The topic of constitutional government comes up from time to time, and I’m glad. It’s a subject we can all learn more about.

For more than forty years, I’ve been yelling at any American who’ll listen, “Maintain the Constitution! Defend the Constitution! Die for the Constitution if you must! It’s all we’ve $%^&*+in’ GOT!” After all, a country is just some dirt surrounded by an imaginary line, but a soundly-written fundamental law is one of the most precious things Man can create.

The U.S. was and is damned lucky that its constitution was written by savvy politicians – genuine statesmen, by God! – who had earlier models to study, and previous experience in running governments. Yes, as someone has pointed out, the political climate and level of sophistication of the citizenry mattered a great deal, but without a sound document to follow it all might have turned out much, much worse.

I’m glad that Gumboot isn’t impressed with 200-odd years of the U.S. constitution. That comes very well from a citizen of a country that dates from – when? The Treaty of Waitangi? That would be 1840. 168 years! I’m not impressed!

Actually, I am. Few countries anywhere have operated under the same constitution as long as the U.S., and En Zed is doing just fine. Keep it up!

[Elind]

Wow. The planet's a lot whiter than I thought, then.

A joke I presume - but it won't be for much longer.

[Elind]

I don't think the American system is any better or any worse than any other system that has ever been implemented. All political systems function "well enough". Until one day they don't.

The USA is no different.

I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

[gumboot]

But it's hard to argue that the USA is not a "great nation" in many senses of the term. Even if we collapse after only another century, we will remain much more than a footnote in history.

I consider the USA to be a fantastic nation. I can say with certainty, as a citizen of a rather small defenseless nation, that I am eternally grateful for the protection that has been provided by the USA. And the more I interact with Americans, the more I respect their nation.



I find that claim totally unsupportable. As if the democratic US and, say, communist Cambodia were six of one, half dozen of another.

Well okay let me rephrase, because you're right that's not a sensible comparison. How about if I argued that all forms of government with a more-or-less stable track record are much of the sameness, as they all work, until one day they don't?



I’m glad that Gumboot isn’t impressed with 200-odd years of the U.S. constitution. That comes very well from a citizen of a country that dates from – when? The Treaty of Waitangi? That would be 1840. 168 years! I’m not impressed!

Actually New Zealand has only existed as a sovereign nation since 1948. We're still a teeny tiny little baby. I'm certainly not impressed. On the other hand, our system of government (which is what we're actually talking about here) is much, much older than that.



Actually, I am. Few countries anywhere have operated under the same constitution as long as the U.S., and En Zed is doing just fine. Keep it up!

I don't consider maintenance of a constitution to be the be-all and end-all of good government. New Zealand doesn't even have a constitution, but we seem to be doing fine. Likewise for the United Kingdom, and many other countries.

The US obsession with the constitution prevents your society from evolving over time. The English people were experts at evolving and assimilating new ideas, and that's precisely why they are by far the most successful peoples in human history.


I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

I disagree. I think the British system, for example, is fundamentally the same as it was when the Constitution was adopted. Certainly there have been changes, just as the US system has changed. But the basic structure of both systems remains the same.

The question, I suppose, becomes "What constitutes a fundamental change to a political system?"

[Piggy]

I never studied politics, but it seems to me that most other systems have developed with fairly homogeneous populations. The American one (including culture) seems, so far, to be much better capable of working with a tradition of immigrants. Europe on the other hand is having great problems with that aspect. The truth is that the US system is still fundamentally as it was created. Most others, kingdoms aside, are not the same today as they were when the US constitution was adopted.

Also keep in mind that the US was formed from and by colonies who had widely disparate interests. Looking back, we tend to lump them all together as a bunch of ex-Brits, but the citizens and representatives of Maryland, New York, and Georgia certainly didn't see it that way.

To form a workable government required crafting a system that allowed these various states (and each did consider itself to be its own political state, not a province of some larger state) to get along.

And getting it right on the second shot is damn impressive.

[Piggy]

Well okay let me rephrase, because you're right that's not a sensible comparison. How about if I argued that all forms of government with a more-or-less stable track record are much of the sameness, as they all work, until one day they don't?

I still can't go w/ you b/c you've got to include stable autocracies in there. China = US? How about Pharaoic Egypt? That hung around a while.

For some reason, though, your post reminds me of the immortal words of Devo:

The ape regards his tail.
He's stuck on it.
Repeats until he fails.
Half a goon and half a god,
A man's not made of steel.

[gumboot]

I still can't go w/ you b/c you've got to include stable autocracies in there. China = US? How about Pharaoic Egypt? That hung around a while.


I guess it depends how your assessing it's "greatness". If you're assessing it based on current moral and ethical values, then sure, it's great, but you have to consider your own bias. If you're considering simply its effectiveness in maintaining a stable and continuous society, then there's lots of other equally effective examples, including Ancient Egypt and China.

I'd certainly choose to live in modern America over China or Ancient Egypt, but you can't deny that those particular states worked for a very long time (and China is still working).

[proxywar]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said it is irrational to lump together the individuals who are Americans except for immigrants, because they have the common quality that they all chose to be here and thus must have something in common. Otherwise, the only thing that for instance you and I have in common by virtue of both being American is that we happen to live in the same tract of land and are both subject to the laws of the Federal government.

I thought you were refering to the spainish and europeans of the archaic. May bad, I didn't realize you were saying immigrants were different than americans. nor do I even understand that if they're assimilated legally. The laws of the land are our alienable rights.

As for what I was saying about us being individual organism who work together to support our superorganism. That superorganism is US. we
can dissagree on the formalities which support us but that doesn't mean
we're working against each other infact quite the opposite we are working
together for the greater good of our superorganism. i.e.(our people)


e.g. No ant is an island. the tiny beasts maintain constant contact, greeting each other as they pass on their walkways, swapping bits of regurgitated food, adopting social roles that ranged from warrior or royal handmaiden to garbage handler and file clerk. Yes, at the heart of many ant colonies is a room to which all incoming workers bring their discoveries. Seated at the chamber's center is a staff of insect bureaucrats who examine the new find, determine where it is needed in the colony, and send it off to the queen's chamber if it is a prized morsel, to the nursery if it is ordinary nourishment, to the construction crews if it would make good mortar, or to the garbage heap kept just outside the nest. Viewed from the human perspective, the activities of the individual ants seemed to matter far less than the behavior of the colony as a whole. In fact, the colony acted as if it were an independent creature, feeding itself, expelling its wastes, defending itself, and looking out for its future.


e.g. sponge observed comparsion to how human soceity is a superorganism as well. To you and me, a sponge is quite clearly a single clump of squeezable stuff. But that singularity is an illusion. Take a living sponge, run it through a sieve into a bucket, and the sponge breaks up into a muddy liquid that clouds the water into which it falls. That cloud is a mob of self-sufficient cells, wrenched from their comfortably settled life between familiar neighbors and set adrift in a chaotic world. Each of those cells has theoretically got everything it takes to handle life on its own. But something inside the newly liberated sponge cell tells it, You either live in a group or you cannot live at all. The micro-beasts search frantically for their old companions, then labor to reconstruct the social system that bound them together. Within a few hours, the water of your bucket grows clear. And sitting at the bottom is a complete, reconstituted sponge. Like the sponge cells and the slime mold amoeba, you and I are parts of a vast population whose pooled efforts move some larger creature on its path through life. Like the sponge cells, we cannot live in total separation from the human clump. We are components of a superorganism.



Where we disagree is the method.



I don't think we should have "complete controlled government collectivism." The government should exist merely to facilitate individuals being able to do whatever it is that they, as individuals, want to do and prevent things from happening to them (like being murdered or whatever) that they, as individuals, do not want done to them.

Government runned Collectivism would be the problem instead of reling on individuals whom make up the superorganism. Government runned Collectivism, That is where we're heading with this socialist health-care, socialist colleges, socialist welfare-state economy, embryonic stem cell research, leaders who replace not "bible" with "ford" but the "constitution" with the "patriot act". Not in humans we trust, but in government we trust, scarey.Government should be limited as the constitution and hamilton championed. Innovation is important without capitalism no innovation prospers. Government could one day be the ones killing us if not physcially then mentally. Utopia can never exist our genenome is uncapable and such a world would be boring and mundane liberal fascism.




I'm a person and I'm American, but I don't think this. (Well, I think that the Federal Government has abused its power in some areas, but not the same areas that you're thinking of I don't think.) Does this mean I'm not part of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? The American people are not a superorganism. We are a collection of three hundred million people each with our own beliefs, thoughts, and ideas. To treat this collection as a single entity is the fricking definition of collectivism, and it is that which is at the heart of fascism.

No **** you don't think like this, because you're indocrinated by the government school systems and probally on serveral pharmaceuticals.
You're allowing government to play the drums on your heart completely, while neglecting to use your neural functions.

I'm not talking about abusing power that is expected because nothing is perfect. I'm talking about the government using someone like obama to
create a complete gental coup over the mob mentality inorder to create
this brave new world The Federalist Society wants.



Rather then cheaing off the kids test next to us, we are all cheating off the test of the kid who took the test last year. The only difference is that we are sitting in the same chair as that kid (metaphorically speaking). It is the person that matters, not where they happen to sit.

You misunderstood me, by coping off our neighbors we forget what makes america so great our innovation. I understand you're a humanitarian do-gooder but I'm warning you to look before you leap. Innovantion is the key to our survival, it will help people, while also Limiting the governments control over us, and keep the economy a free-market with little government intervention. One always has more choices than the government persents, we just have to be innovative and aware enough to out smart'em. Other-wise welcome to a brave new world.

[proxywar]

No, I think you're calling a fork a spade.

As for the "name calling", I did not intend the references to paranoia and knee-jerk reactions as epithets. I meant them literally.

Your posts do appear to be driven by both tendencies, given that you're condemning ideas that have not actually been expressed and utterly failing to provide any support for your views, instead merely asserting that you're somehow "telling it like it is".

think what you want about my mental state you've been conditioned to anway and psychology is BS. the end of history is coming, enjoy your soma

My paranoia is healthy.

[Piggy]

I guess it depends how your assessing it's "greatness". If you're assessing it based on current moral and ethical values, then sure, it's great, but you have to consider your own bias. If you're considering simply its effectiveness in maintaining a stable and continuous society, then there's lots of other equally effective examples, including Ancient Egypt and China.

I'd certainly choose to live in modern America over China or Ancient Egypt, but you can't deny that those particular states worked for a very long time (and China is still working).

The OP is not concerned with the question of whether USA is the only great nation, or the greatest nation, or even with the question of what makes nations great.

The OP is concerned with the question of the validity of a currently popular meme: That the US's government isn't responsible for those attributes which are commonly held to make USA a "great nation", but that rather the character of its people is responsible.

It is that political platitude, that contemporary meme, which I find unsupportable.

[Piggy]

think what you want about my mental state you've been conditioned to anway and psychology is BS. the end of history is coming, enjoy your soma

My paranoia is healthy.

Hey, man, when the rapture comes, can I have your car?

[gumboot]

The OP is not concerned with the question of whether USA is the only great nation, or the greatest nation, or even with the question of what makes nations great.

The OP is concerned with the question of the validity of a currently popular meme: That the US's government isn't responsible for those attributes which are commonly held to make USA a "great nation", but that rather the character of its people is responsible.


Except your argument was that the character of its people was really no different to any other nation so therefore it was the government (which is different) that makes it a great nation. Inherent in your argument is the claim that the USA is greater than other nations. Otherwise whether its people and government are different to any other nation or not is irrelevant.

I suppose my argument is that the human race are what are great, and that due to our greatness we have repeatedly, in a variety of forms, been able to maintain "great" societies. The USA is just one more example in a long and unfinished list.

Like any other great society, the USA has its flaws and its stunning achievements. And like any other great society, the USA is a product of great people.

[Piggy]

Except your argument was that the character of its people was really no different to any other nation so therefore it was the government (which is different) that makes it a great nation. Inherent in your argument is the claim that the USA is greater than other nations.

This is an error in reasoning, if you conclude -- as you do -- that this implies a claim that USA is the greatest nation.

Suppose my original idea in the OP were correct. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were true that the folks in USA were pretty much the same as folks all over the world, but that governments around the world differed significantly.

It could still be true that America's government makes it a great nation, but that other forms of government elsewhere made even greater nations.

[Piggy]

I suppose my argument is that the human race are what are great, and that due to our greatness we have repeatedly, in a variety of forms, been able to maintain "great" societies.

If it were true that the human race is great -- an argument which my experience cannot support -- then you are left with nothing to explain why some nations achieve greatness and others remain squalid or oppressive.

[gumboot]

This is an error in reasoning, if you conclude -- as you do -- that this implies a claim that USA is the greatest nation.

Suppose my original idea in the OP were correct. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were true that the folks in USA were pretty much the same as folks all over the world, but that governments around the world differed significantly.

It could still be true that America's government makes it a great nation, but that other forms of government elsewhere made even greater nations.



That's very true. Good point. :)

[gumboot]

If it were true that the human race is great -- an argument which my experience cannot support -- then you are left with nothing to explain why some nations achieve greatness and others remain squalid or oppressive.


I would argue that the greatness of the human race is the reason for its achievements (such as the creation of great political systems that produce great nations) but that the greatness of the human race is not evenly distributed. Some people are greater than others. The USA had the fortune of having a good collection of great people come together in one place with a common purpose. In my experience that is the most typical reason for the creation of anything great.

Of course great things can easily be destroyed by people who do not appreciate or value their greatness. Some recognition must be given for the fact that the American people value and realise the greatness of their political system, and thus seek to maintain it.

So in conclusion...

The United States is a great nation because great people created a great system, and because regular Americans (some of whom are great) recognise its greatness and work to maintain it.

Does that mean we all win? :confused:

[Piggy]

So in conclusion...

The United States is a great nation because great people created a great system, and because regular Americans (some of whom are great) recognise its greatness and work to maintain it.

I would not argue against that. :)

[proxywar]

Hey, man, when the rapture comes, can I have your car?

I'm not a religious man, But i suppose when the government's brave new world comes they'll be more than happy to take my car and give it to you if you explain to them your financial situation is wrose off than mine. :D

camaro z28 ok with you?

[Piggy]

I'm not a religious man, But i suppose when the government's brave new world comes they'll be more than happy to take my car and give it to you if you explain to them your financial situation is wrose off than mine.
Six of one, half dozen of another. Everyone's got their apocalypse.

camaro z28 ok with you?
Oh, sure. Glory days, brother!

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
ETA: In the words of a great american "the scariest thing you will ever here is "I'm from the governemnt and I am here to help you"".Excuse me for calling you on this, but this is nothing but a BS slogan from a politician. It is all slogan and absolutely ludicrous as an actual statement of fact.

Reagan got a laugh and mindless agreement. It's a Libertarian fantasy that the government can't do anything right and the private sector is always better. Nonsense. Do you want a private police force? A private fire department? Don't want the National Guard to help out after a disaster? That's what we got with Bush, no help after Katrina, and over 1,000 dead.

The government screws stuff up, so does the private sector. The government does a lot of things well, so does the private sector. It's mindless to believe in slogans like that one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do believe in the old saying "people are the same wherever you go"....Unless you are in the tribal areas in the Afghanistan/Pakistan mountains or in the middle of warlord wars in Sierra Leone. Some people are nuts and aren't the same. For the most part, though, they probably are the same.

[proxywar]

Everyone's got their apocalypse.

I'll bet you do.


Glory days, brother



I shall call you, The Dude.

And on that note...

I don't drink or get high from weed
my head is clean, my anti-drug is speed
amphetamines: make me wake up in the street
I wear reflectors to bed cuz I run in my sleep
no need to debate it, my physician was appalled when
he needed a calculator to take my pulse with
he also said I should stay away from the cocaine
so I made a ten foot straw - it gave me nose pain

Later!

[billydkid]

Yes, you are right. The idea being that here (as I suspect it really is everywhere) the government is a reflection of the people. In a sense, that is true. Dubya is a reflection of the enduring idiocy of the American people. Supposedly we have a framework on which our government hangs which prevents the people and the people they select to represent them from ruining things altogether. But it has been clear that when hysteria strikes all of that can go out the window like sanity has easily gone out the window in a thousand other civilized societies.