GOP

[Shantel]

Unfortunately wars are a part of human nature and are regrettably a huge waste of human life and resources. They may not always be for the benefit of most of us, but they do benefit the few who control the military industrial complex and the Wall Street brokers who underwrite wars through stock trading and bond selling activities, and in the bigger picture serve to keep a failing economy afloat that is based 70% on consumerism alone. In spite of that there will always be the naysayers and decriers who would be the first to cry out "Somebody do something" when the first chemical, biological or radiological device was detonated here. So on that note I'm out of this thread rather than agonize over the drama that ensues when we have a multiplicity of differing opinions on an issue about which most have little knowledge.

[tomthom]

as an aside, I never said that was the only reason for war, simply the most palatable one for the public to hear.

[gennee]

I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).

I don't know, just a thought.

China holds all the aces. All they have to do is dump the dollar. Then there would REALLY be an economic disaster. China built up its infrastructure while America did not.

[Jess42]

China holds all the aces. All they have to do is dump the dollar. Then there would REALLY be an economic disaster. China built up its infrastructure while America did not.

China really scares the crap out of me. They could defeat this country and probably the whole world without ever firing a round.

[tomthom]

I suggest you people actually study china and how global politics work before you become afraid or start making ridiculous claims.

And China doesn't use the dollar. all foreign debt is handled in gold so one nation doesn't cheat another out of what they lent via artificial inflation.

[Shantel]

China is holding the biggest part of this nation's debt. There are those who say that China needs us so nothing bad will ever come of it because the US is China's biggest market. Well yes and no to that thinking, because China has established itself over the entire globe and besides waging cyber warfare against the US, China is trying to influence the IMF to dump the USD as the world's standard currency and consider the Chinese yuan instead. Chinese leadership being extremely stoic and historically pragmatic and as good Asians always take the long view on the outcome of their actions, they would have no problem dumping all their US T bonds and dumping the US on it's face. Should that happen the USD wouldn't even be good enough for butt wipe and we would all be in a world of extreme hurt for sure.

[Jess42]

I really believe that our natural resources in the way of crude oil is collateral for all of our borrowed money. Most of what is being drilled for in the states right now is natuaral gas. Crude oil in the gulf and other areas is practically nill for being produced. Of course light sweet crude is more valuable than natural gas. Not to mention gasoline and diesel can't be made from natural gas. Diesel drives economies more than gasoline. Practically anything in the transportaion of goods is done so with diesel. Trains and trucks. Most machinery for developement also runs on diesel. Natural gas pretty much don't have the umph and gasoline engines don't last as long. Anyway that's my take on China and all the trillions we borrowed from them.

[tomthom]

China is holding the biggest part of this nation's debt. There are those who say that China needs us so nothing bad will ever come of it because the US is China's biggest market. Well yes and no to that thinking, because China has established itself over the entire globe and besides waging cyber warfare against the US, China is trying to influence the IMF to dump the USD as the world's standard currency and consider the Chinese yuan instead. Chinese leadership being extremely stoic and historically pragmatic and as good Asians always take the long view on the outcome of their actions, they would have no problem dumping all their US T bonds and dumping the US on it's face. Should that happen the USD wouldn't even be good enough for butt wipe and we would all be in a world of extreme hurt for sure.

as I said, the gold standard is used. it would be translated over to the yuan so that doesn't work. Either way, if China took over it's not like that's the end of the world, that's just you being partisan to your own country due to misplaced senses of patriotism. It's ok for the times to change.

[Kayla]

I suggest you people actually study china and how global politics work before you become afraid or start making ridiculous claims.

And China doesn't use the dollar. all foreign debt is handled in gold so one nation doesn't cheat another out of what they lent via artificial inflation.

That is incorrect. As it stands right now, the only two international currencies are gold and the dollar, the latter being the most often used. There was a push to make the SDR an international currency back in early 2010, but I haven't heard anything about it since the G20 London Summit. While these suggestions were pushed China, they got nothing but a lukewarm response at best.

Also, China has no interest in crashing an economy that they are mutually dependent on. Not to mention the largest owner of American debt are, ironically, Americans. Social Security trust funds and the Fed are the top two holders of American debt. China, owns about 5% of our overall debt, Japan holds almost the same amount. That is it for countries who sit amongst the top ten owners of American debt.

[formerMTF]

Conservatives win more often than liberals or moderates because they are the most motivated. 

[peky]

war is but an extension of a failed policy....

[Jamie D]

Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the role of the federal government, nothing more, nothing less.

[formerMTF]

The GOP is much more than democrats aware of the general view of seeing the Constitution and the constitutitonal values superior to the '' democratic will of the people''.  In case the federal goverment brakes the constitution the executive goverment may feel that is obigated to act against it. So any policy understanding the constitution differently than the military/local law endorcement is way of saying the the goverments wants a coup.

[Shantel]

The GOP is much more than democrats aware of the general view of seeing the Constitution and the constitutitonal values superior to the '' democratic will of the people''.  In case the federal goverment brakes the constitution the executive goverment may feel that is obigated to act against it. So any policy understanding the constitution differently than the military/local law endorcement is way of saying the the goverments wants a coup.

What a lot of people don't understand is that the USA is not a Democracy per se, but is a a Democratic constitutional Republic whereby the Constitution is a guarantee of God given human rights written by the founding fathers to prevent government overreach. The opposition continuously works feverishly to delineate the concept of God and assert the idea that rights are given by the government instead, and that the Constitution itself is a "living document' meaning that it can be changed at will. This Republic is supposedly governed by the chosen representatives of the people under the strict guidelines laid out by the Constitution but some would exchange that lawful document for a Democracy which without guidelines would amount to nothing more than mob rule for the masses overseen by a chosen few who would distribute benefits to all on an equal basis. Sounds nice, but comes straight out of "Das Kapital" Karl Marx's communist manifesto.

[formerMTF]

Just as Shantel wrote in the U.S. the democracy is inferior to the constitution.  And that is the reason that makes a military coup possible. If the military thinks the elected goverment breaks the constitution it may coup.  From the view of the military every liberal goverment breakes the constitution officers being over 80% hard right republicans.  So left-of-center ideology can never be achieved in the U.S. despite of the progressives saying otherwise.  For example more gun control is a  fast way to the ''legimitive'' military coup.

[Ltl89]

As a progressive, I will ignore and not address some of the slights in this thread in order to keep civility on this board. 

However, there is a lot to address.  The United States constitution establishes the Representative Republic we live in.  Read the 3 articles found within.  The system is legitimized by that very document.  So, I don't know how you can say democracy is inferior to the constitution when the constitution is what supports the regime within the U.S.

Lastly, even if you hate the current administration and it's policy, no military coup will occur.  If you think they are acting irresponsible or their policies are unconstitutional, there are remedies for this already within the constitution.  Congress has the ability to impeach the federal officials who they believe are abusing their power.  No need for a military takeover.  And if you are concerned that the laws are unconstitutional, the supreme court can practice judicial review and overturn said policies.  Once again, there is no need for us to live under a military junta (which would actually be breaking the constitution).

[Misato]

The opposition continuously works feverishly to delineate the concept of God and assert the idea that rights are given by the government instead, and that the Constitution itself is a "living document' meaning that it can be changed at will.

According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.

Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days.  Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans.  All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes.  It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.

Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach.  I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs.  I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!"  We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.

[Shantel]

According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.

I doubt that those original signatories had amending in mind at the time, and definitely would have trounced the concept of an IRS. Even now there are movements to limit the 1st Amendment and do away with the second if at all possible and possibly the IRS. If that document was a human being we could rightly say that we are watching a hamstringing and blood letting operation in progress.

Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days.  Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans.  All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes.  It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.

I couldn't agree with you more on that comment!

Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach.  I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs.  I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!"  We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.

Absolutely true, but just the same we can't dismiss the fact that the Constitution was written by men who revered God and acknowledged  Him or Her as the author of humankind's freedoms clearly stating that those freedoms don't emanate from any government. On a final note, I'll not get into a pissing match over this because we are all individuals entitled to our own opinions and it does none of us any good to get steamed up toward one another over something we have no control over.

[Ltl89]

The procedures for amending the constitution are within the document.  I doubt they would have given ways to alter the document without believing this was a possibility.  Also, the first ten amendments were drafted the same year the constitution was implemented.  It's hard to claim they didn't foresee amendments being part of the process.  However, they probably didn't expect it to be common place as they created tough standards to get amendments passed.  Nonetheless, amending the constitution isn't really done commonly and I would argue it isn't really going against their intentions.

As for religion, it is true that the founding fathers believed in a deity, but there religion beliefs were diverse and many were secular.  Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both prominent deists who believed in secular government.  The separation of church and state comes from Jefferson and that's why republicans fought to remove his name from textbooks in Texas.  John Adams was a strong Christian, but he was a Unitarian who believed that religion was a personal thing and should not be promoted by the state.  This is reinforced by the Treaty of Tripoli which was drafted during his administration.  George Washington is ambiguous but I would say he was likely a deist because of his strong ties to masonry.  However, there are claims of him praying and attending church.  The only major founding father that would have rejected the separation of Church and state is Samuel Adams.  So, we can look at the founding father's religious beliefs in a historical sense and appreciate it.  Yet, it does not effect how we view the separation of church and state because the intentions of many of them were clear.  It's like France and Italy.  They have a fairly religious background, but there current government and state policies have been fairly secular.  Religion is fine when it remains in the private sphere.  When others try to dictate policies because of their personal religious beliefs, I have to cringe.  That is why the transgender community doesn't get treated equally and that is why we don't get equal rights.  It frustrates me. 

[Shantel]

The procedures for amending the constitution are within the document.  I doubt they would have given ways to alter the document without believing this was a possibility.  Also, the first ten amendments were drafted the same year the constitution was implemented.  It's hard to claim they didn't foresee amendments being part of the process.  However, they probably didn't expect it to be common place as they created tough standards to get amendments passed.  Nonetheless, amending the constitution isn't really done commonly and I would argue it isn't really going against their intentions.

Well this is true, but it takes a majority in congress and the will of the people to do that as opposed to the President creating czars and doing end runs around the constitution for the sake of implementing his own agenda. We don't have a king, supposedly we have a system of checks and balances which I sometimes wonder about.

As for religion, it is true that the founding fathers believed in a deity, but there religion beliefs were diverse and many were secular.  Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both prominent deists who believed in secular government.  The separation of church and state comes from Jefferson and that's why republicans fought to remove his name from textbooks in Texas.  John Adams was a strong Christian, but he was a Unitarian who believed that religion was a personal thing and should not be promoted by the state.  This is reinforced by the Treaty of Tripoli which was drafted during his administration.  George Washington is ambiguous but I would say he was likely a deist because of his strong ties to masonry.  However, there are claims of him praying and attending church.  The only major founding father that would have rejected the separation of Church and state is Samuel Adams.  So, we can look at the founding father's religious beliefs in a historical sense and appreciate it.  Yet, it does not effect how we view the separation of church and state because the intentions of many of them were clear.  It's like France and Italy.  They have a fairly religious background, but there current government and state policies have been fairly secular.  Religion is fine when it remains in the private sphere.  When others try to dictate policies because of their personal religious beliefs, I have to cringe.  That is why the transgender community doesn't get treated equally and that is why we don't get equal rights.  It frustrates me.

The whole idea of separation of church and state sprung out of what happened in England where the king had set up the Church of England as the state religion. The authors of the constitution sought safeguards against that happening here. I am frustrated about people's attitudes towards the transgender community as well, but regardless of whatever religion or belief system people espouse it's there and it's more a part of human nature than of the basic tenets of any religious beliefs. The bigots do hide behind religion often twisting scripture and verse to make their point, but it doesn't make the religion bad, it's the people themselves that are flawed and evil. I often say that the word discrimination has been given a bad rap because I am discriminating about what I eat, what I wear, where I go, and even who I like and don't like, but some use discrimination for evil purposes and unfortunately no laws will change the condition of their hearts toward us.