Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Osborn F Enready]

I would like to propose an idea to all debaters in this forum who regularly disagree with me on Constitutional and Rights issues. This is as much for me, as it is for everyone else to participate. I want to suggest that in THIS thread, people who normally have issues with my positions, ask me specific questions about specific issues, and let me try to address them to the best of my ability.

I do not desire to start a flame fest, or a shouting match. I want to debate law, rights and Constitutional issues, not philosophy issues, at least in THIS thread.

The reason I am doing this is because I have people who claim to be self professed liberals, and conservatives, accuse me of being from one of those sides because of the way I frame my debates, or reply to others debates.

I am doing this to try to close some of the divide here, between myself and those who do not understand my position fully, yet label me as they see fit.

I welcome all questions from all people, but mainly I direct this thread to those that often find themselves saying "that damn Osborn and his (liberal/conservative) stance."

I am neither Republican or Democrat, nor do I think that should make a difference in how we vote. Parties, and party spirit are one of the evils of free nations, since they become divisive tools to be used to further divide the nation, for other purposes which are usually to some groups advantage over anothers.

I am asking everyone, from ALL parties to DROP the party line, and become independent for the good of the nation.(not independent party, I mean become a non-supporter of ANY party)

Please, regardless of if you like me or not, like my philosophy or not, like my ideology or not, LEVEL the guns at me and let loose the barrage. We need to clear the air, and address the real problem, which is that we are ALL being used for political purposes, and most of us don't even know to what extent.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and hopefully to respond.

Peace

[Osborn F Enready]

For those who would like to know a little about my position before posting, here is a link to my thread about the Unconstitutional USA that we have today.
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread932.html

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready For those who would like to know a little about my position before posting, here is a link to my thread about the Unconstitutional USA that we have today. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread932.html

Osborn, I would love to have a little Q and A with you, however, philosophy and law go hand in hand. I will not debate pure politics with you. Those debates go nowhere because there is no philosophical foundation to set one's opinions onto. Once you realize your bias and know what your going to think on issues, then what you think our priorities as a nation should be, debate goes much smoother.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am open for discussion. Lets rock. I will try to keep this as civil and professional as possible, in the hopes that ALL who post do the same.

I too would love to have this discussion, so please post small parts at a time(no lists of 30 questions at once please, I enjoy the challenge but I am not asking for my own personal hell here!)

I welcome ANYONES comments, or questions, or debate.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am open for discussion. Lets rock. I will try to keep this as civil and professional as possible, in the hopes that ALL who post do the same. I too would love to have this discussion, so please post small parts at a time(no lists of 30 questions at once please, I enjoy the challenge but I am not asking for my own personal hell here!) I welcome ANYONES comments, or questions, or debate.

I would like to know the following answers:

What religion are you?
What government is best for our nation?
Do you agree with everything the constitution says, generally speaking?
Do you agree that the constitution is vague and can be interpreted by representative leaders of our government?
Do you agree that the constitution needs to be amended to support the wishes of the majority of the United States citizens?
Do you believe in a more federal government or a more state level/local level government and why?

Sorry for the questions this just gives me some background to work my other questions off of. Thanks.

*feel free to be general with me, we can go into specifics later.

[Osborn F Enready]

What religion are you?

Answer: None. I was raised protestant, but since being legal age, have had no affiliation with religion other than exploratory research. I have read about many, agreed with few, sign on to none.

What government is best for our nation?

Answer: The one we have, under the Constitution of the United States, with minor exceptions on amendments that I feel need to be repealed, one of which, the most crucial, the 16th amendment.

Do you agree with everything the constitution says, generally speaking?

Answer: Yes, for the most part. The areas I disagree with are absolutely minimal, but they are the areas of slavery and suffrage mainly.

Do you agree that the constitution is vague and can be interpreted by representative leaders of our government?

Answer: It is vague in some areas, mainly the area in the Bill of Rights, where they enumerate the rights of the people, and specifically mention that not all rights are enumerated. I am sure our elected leaders can interpret it, as it is written in common english, therfore anyone with a decent command of the english language should be able to read and understand it wholly and completely, with exception to word definitions that have changed since the period it was written.

Do you agree that the constitution needs to be amended to support the wishes of the majority of the United States citizens?

Answer: Yes and No. It is a document that specifies within it how, and what procedure should be used to amend it, so yes, it can and if need be, SHOULD be amended. However, the Constitution clearly limits the central government(federal) and not the citizens, and it also clearly defines that NO rights are amendable. The Bill of Rights contains enumerations of the rights that are NOT to be encroached under any means, reasoning, or majority.

Do you believe in a more federal government or a more state level/local level government and why?

Answer: I believe exactly as the Constitution states, should be followed, unless corrected under valid amendment proceedings. That would mean I believe in a strongly limited Central government, with very strong state governments. The thing to note, is that all state and local governments MUST adhere to the Constitution, and the limits within it, on power of the state, or local government.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government?




By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government?

I say:
I side squarely and completely on the side of the forefathers here.

The difference is purely the ease with which corruption can be entrenched. In a strong local government (state, local) the people have the ability to PERSONALLY monitor government actions, operations, and intents, since all government is local and observable, as well as easier to find sympathetic citizens to combat new and oppressive policy, proclamations, or laws.

A strong Central Government, isolates itself from the citizens, by distance as well as accessability. The government has total control over all local governments, rendering them useless in effect. This leads to many citizens complaints falling on deaf ears, if for no other reason, because it hears SO MANY from all corners, and can't possibly respond to local level disputes with reasonable amount of time, sincerity, or fairness.

Our system was designed as a Limited Central Government, Strong State Government for a reason. To keep the growth of corruption in the face of the locals, removing the ability of isolation from local problems and intrests by a Strong Centralized System of Government.

This is one reason we rebelled against England. The King could not satiate the desires of the American Colonies, because they were in all aspects having different needs, desires, and local problems with which the King in England had no knowledge, or care for that matter, to resolve. As long as the people paid taxes, the King was happy. The people SERVED the King, as opposed to the government serving the people, who created it.

Local governments are accessible to locals. Central government is accessible to representatives.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff.

I say:
Great, this is what I was hoping for. We can all learn more if we approach this MINUS the partisan aspect. Please, feel unrestrained and free to ask anything you like, or refute or dispute at your leisure. (but of course, expect to be challenged.)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready SoccerfreakAB2 said: In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government? I say: I side squarely and completely on the side of the forefathers here. The difference is purely the ease with which corruption can be entrenched. In a strong local government (state, local) the people have the ability to PERSONALLY monitor government actions, operations, and intents, since all government is local and observable, as well as easier to find sympathetic citizens to combat new and oppressive policy, proclamations, or laws. A strong Central Government, isolates itself from the citizens, by distance as well as accessability. The government has total control over all local governments, rendering them useless in effect. This leads to many citizens complaints falling on deaf ears, if for no other reason, because it hears SO MANY from all corners, and can't possibly respond to local level disputes with reasonable amount of time, sincerity, or fairness. Our system was designed as a Limited Central Government, Strong State Government for a reason. To keep the growth of corruption in the face of the locals, removing the ability of isolation from local problems and intrests by a Strong Centralized System of Government. This is one reason we rebelled against England. The King could not satiate the desires of the American Colonies, because they were in all aspects having different needs, desires, and local problems with which the King in England had no knowledge, or care for that matter, to resolve. As long as the people paid taxes, the King was happy. The people SERVED the King, as opposed to the government serving the people, who created it. Local governments are accessible to locals. Central government is accessible to representatives. SoccerfreakAB2 said: By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff. I say: Great, this is what I was hoping for. We can all learn more if we approach this MINUS the partisan aspect. Please, feel unrestrained and free to ask anything you like, or refute or dispute at your leisure. (but of course, expect to be challenged.)

Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell I wish we could give all the power to the people, so long as the decisions that they make are for the interests of the masses. Many people are not fit for government.

Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change.

We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I'll throw in an example. Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell I wish we could give all the power to the people, so long as the decisions that they make are for the interests of the masses. Many people are not fit for government.

Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change.

We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society.

I say:
All of the above, I completely disagree with. You speak of "born" leaders, and speak of "some" people not being fit to rule. This goes against every grain of our Constitution, and it speaks of the evils of exactly what the forefathers feared of nobility.

It is impossible to have those beliefs, yet believe in equality for all under the eyes of the law. Therefore, how could you justify such a belief?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
I agree, but not at the expense of constitutional limitations. All power is GRANTED by the people to the government, therfore the government must clearly show where it derived such power. There is no derivation of power as you speak. If you know of it, and I missed it, I implore you to point it out.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
That is personal opinion, and I would like to see where the Central or Federal government derives that power in accordance to the Constitution they claim to uphold.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now.

I say:
It causes division between states, as rightly should be allowed under constitutional law. I fail to see where the central government derives the power to make decisions that are clearly in control of the people, or the state. Division and strife are not bad if it provides ALTERNATIVES, which is what the states system was to embody. To be forced to live WITHOUT alternative, embodies NO meaning of the word liberty, or justice.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready SoccerfreakAB2 said: Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell I wish we could give all the power to the people, so long as the decisions that they make are for the interests of the masses. Many people are not fit for government. Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change. We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. I say: All of the above, I completely disagree with. You speak of "born" leaders, and speak of "some" people not being fit to rule. This goes against every grain of our Constitution, and it speaks of the evils of exactly what the forefathers feared of nobility. It is impossible to have those beliefs, yet believe in equality for all under the eyes of the law. Therefore, how could you justify such a belief? SoccerfreakAB2 said: The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification. I say: I agree, but not at the expense of constitutional limitations. All power is GRANTED by the people to the government, therfore the government must clearly show where it derived such power. There is no derivation of power as you speak. If you know of it, and I missed it, I implore you to point it out. SoccerfreakAB2 said: We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification. I say: That is personal opinion, and I would like to see where the Central or Federal government derives that power in accordance to the Constitution they claim to uphold. SoccerfreakAB2 said: This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now. I say: It causes division between states, as rightly should be allowed under constitutional law. I fail to see where the central government derives the power to make decisions that are clearly in control of the people, or the state. Division and strife are not bad if it provides ALTERNATIVES, which is what the states system was to embody. To be forced to live WITHOUT alternative, embodies NO meaning of the word liberty, or justice.

Osborn, take off the constitution cloak and listen to what I'm saying. You sound like a devout theist with his Bible. We can change the constitution and we've done it plenty of times. Don't speak like its the ultimate authority over everything and everyone. We can change it for a reason. People, ideas, technology, all evolving, all changing.

As for born leaders and those fit to rule, are you saying you could have led the attack on the beaches of Normandy, or you could easily fill the job of the president for a week? Or maybe you could be captain of the Brazilian soccer team for a season or two. We have faults and weaknesses as humans, and we have our strengths. Leadership and learning (or will of) are strengths of humans. I know what your thinking. Maybe that I'm some knucklehead who wants ultimate power, or to give someone ultimate power, or to put complete trust into the ideal human leader. That is not true. I generally like our system of representative democracy, yet the representation portion needs fixing, not replacement. Our representatives are all rich and educated. We don't find the will to learn within our students and the ability to lead within our schools. We find the man who is in our political party, who has money to fund a campaign, and who has "experience" in politics. That's where the fixing needs to go, not total replacement!

In the beginning the power was not derived by the people, it was derived by the delegates of the colonies who signed the Constitution and put it into effect. The power was then kept in place by the people, not derived from the people. The "people" can change and alter the system, but they didn't start it. I mean, you could also consider our federal government the "people" too.

I'm sad to see you find it ok for our nation to be divided amongst ourselves. You are so obsessed with rights and choices that you are blinded by their effects. Let's look to history about this sectional division among nations. It's 1500 C.E. Charles V of Spain had a completely centralized government due to the Inquisition (completely unjustified but irrelevant to main point). His people were all Catholics and they couldn't change religions. New religions sprang up due to Lutheranism, such as Calvinism and other pagan religions. These religions found their places among the nation. After Charles V died, his centralized government fell apart giving more power to the nobles and their respective states (symbolic of US states). These nobles were swung to one religion or the other. Religious strife and the inability to remove the complete differences and practices among the states brought Spain into complete civil war.

I don't see how the U.S. could avoid violence by dividing themeselves so consciously.

[Jack]

Speaking strictly of the Constitution, I've always been in awe of how well written the document was. It has to be general enough to stand over time, yet specific in certain areas to assure liberty and justice are never ignored.
Do you believe it should remain non-specific for the most part, or should we be making it more specific to ensure certain behaviors are beyond legalization by the States?

[SteveA]

Sounds like fun, Osborn.

Ok, here are a few questions for you.

1) Do you see yourself as a supporter of capitalism and if so, are there typical assumptions or weaknesses about capitalism that you feel should be different?

2) Do you believe it's possible for a beneficial government to exist? What form would it take and how would it safeguard against tyranny?

3) Do you see contradictions between your answers in the previous 2 questions and the Constitution? If so, what are they?

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Osborn, take off the constitution cloak and listen to what I'm saying. You sound like a devout theist with his Bible. We can change the constitution and we've done it plenty of times. Don't speak like its the ultimate authority over everything and everyone. We can change it for a reason. People, ideas, technology, all evolving, all changing.

I say:
You are right to a degree (legally). We can change the Constitution if we follow ITS oultined procedure to do so. If we don't abide its rules, why have it? It was designed as a "system" of law, and you cannot have a system of law when the lawmakers break their own rules, or hypocrisy and tyranny are evident.

We claim to uphold it, yet we have allowed the central government to pass laws encroaching EVERY single right within it, NATION wide, therfore removing any citizens chance to get away from laws they find abhorrent, unjust, unconstitutional. The system isolated itself in the New Deal, and all the changes you speak of I beleive came AFTER the New Deal, which literally abolished all the checks and balances within the Constitution.

Why would they claim to uphold something, when they violate every single limitation emplaced on them by the document? Could it be fear of being seen as "treasonous"?

There are only certain ASPECTS of the document that can be changed by amendment.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
As for born leaders and those fit to rule, are you saying you could have led the attack on the beaches of Normandy, or you could easily fill the job of the president for a week? Or maybe you could be captain of the Brazilian soccer team for a season or two. We have faults and weaknesses as humans, and we have our strengths. Leadership and learning (or will of) are strengths of humans. I know what your thinking. Maybe that I'm some knucklehead who wants ultimate power, or to give someone ultimate power, or to put complete trust into the ideal human leader. That is not true. I generally like our system of representative democracy, yet the representation portion needs fixing, not replacement.

I say:
I am not, nor have I ever, suggested replacing the Constitutionally allowed system, only the parts that the system has changed AGAINST the Constitution.

Would you agree this president, as well as all Congressmen and Senators SWEAR in to uphold, and defend the Constitution? If so, they need to be tried for treason.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
In the beginning the power was not derived by the people, it was derived by the delegates of the colonies who signed the Constitution and put it into effect. The power was then kept in place by the people, not derived from the people. The "people" can change and alter the system, but they didn't start it.

I say:
Not true, or at least, not fully true. The power was derived from the people, and yes, they can change the system if DONE by constitutional provisions. No government, state or federal or local, can change the law in violation of the Constitution. Do you disagree? If so, show me where this power is described in the Constitution, since that is what LAWMAKERS swear in their service to uphold and protect. Our representatives are our last line of defense in keeping protected from federal tyranny. They have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office. Accountability may be long gone, but the point of the matter is simple.

Either we abide by the Constituion, or we stop acting as though we abide by it and scrap it. Which is your choice?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
I'm sad to see you find it ok for our nation to be divided amongst ourselves. You are so obsessed with rights and choices that you are blinded by their effects. Let's look to history about this sectional division among nations.

I say:
I find it hard to believe you think this argument has sound backing. I can show you that every government that has had direct authority over its citizens, has led to tyranny of all sorts, from economic to social. My case in history has been proven time and time again, yet I do not see and line of logic in the example you posted.

My examples?
Lengthy,factual opinion on the problems in the US

I have many, so if you wish to see more, just ask and I will try to explain or provide links where necessary.

You completely disregard the creation of a Federal Bank, the reason for creation of paper money, the derision of power, and where it is delegated. Those are essential to proving your points.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said:
Do you believe it should remain non-specific for the most part, or should we be making it more specific to ensure certain behaviors are beyond legalization by the States?

I say:
I beleive that any change made through the amendment process, should be valid unless the people unite and repeal the amendment as they did prohibition.
I beleive it should be left unchanged unless significant PROOF can be shown as to why it should be changed.
I also beleive it is VERY specific in the sense that it LIMITS the government, NOT the people. The rights should not be allowed to be infringed by ANY law, according to the Constitution, regardless of majority numbers. Regulation is the same as infringment IF done by FEDERAL authority, since this would be considered a DIRECT LIMITATION power, which is not Constitutional.

[Sean]

Interesting thread so far. I know you wanted me to participate Osborn, so I will try...

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am asking everyone, from ALL parties to DROP the party line, and become independent for the good of the nation.(not independent party, I mean become a non-supporter of ANY party)

I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

This is the age of politics-made-easy. There are two parties, who have primary regulations, media frontloading, and all other sorts of protections from third parties, and the people like this. There is a right and left. They are no longer the confusing ideological cluster-coalitions they once were.

Also, I think I am different from you in terms of interpreting the constitution. I see the constitution as a puzzle that we elect representatives to try to figure out. If we disapprove of their results we get new people. I do not see the constitution as something we can treat “strictly”.

I think I also disagree with your push for less federal authority and more people-power. It seems to me the only thing "people power" has brought us is a corporate-controlled nightmare. It seems we have a choice of somewhat-controlling the elites via elections or letting them roam free. Our personal freedoms being enhanced via smaller federal government seems unlikely with the current power of actors within the global economy.

I should also note that I often change my mind about things. I am a flip-flopper. I have said it in a thread that asked me why I do not debate. My mind is constantly questioning itself. I am unsure about nearly everything

[Osborn F Enready]

Steve A asked:
(Steves questions in italics, my answers in regular type)

1) Do you see yourself as a supporter of capitalism and if so, are there typical assumptions or weaknesses about capitalism that you feel should be different?

Yes, I am a staunch supporter of the capitalist FREE MARKET system. The laws pertaining to corporations as well as the free market concept have been changed, for the worse, and most people don't understand how dramatically this effects the Constitutionally designed system of economics.
It has the effect of encouraging, instead of discouraging corruption and fraud, and those openings that allowed this to happen were three major things.... The removal of the ability of citizens to disband corporations should they fail to serve the publics needs, The removal of the Constitutional limitation imposed upon the government FORBIDDING direct taxation, The creation of the Federal Bank which violated every shred of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on capitalism.

2) Do you believe it's possible for a beneficial government to exist? What form would it take and how would it safeguard against tyranny?

It would be almost identical to 1790 America with its Constitutional system, with some changes, such as a more clearly defined citizen oversight system defined by Constitutional Amendment, the abolishment of slavery, full voting rights for all people deemed to be adults, and in posession of their rights. This was the system that fueled the Industrial Revolution in America, and if they would have had full voting rights, and no slavery, the nation of the times would have grown twice as fast in my belief. I would also think an amendment specifying the purpose, intent, and limits of local, state and federal government. I also remove all term limits, and propose a maximum term limit of 6 years, and a minimum of 2. I would also propose an amendment to clearly outline that the oath of office is the highest oath a person could take, with recognition of government, and that its burden is so great, any person violating this oath would be held to the strictest penalties that fit the crime of violation.

3) Do you see contradictions between your answers in the previous 2 questions and the Constitution? If so, what are they?

Yes, but only one area, and that is in what may be deemed as protectionist in the sense of putting safeguards against large monopolies, which lead to corporatism under the capitalist system. Under a truly free market system, with a Constitutional system as we had at that time, monopolistic abuse would be the biggest threat, or weakness in the system.(other than the situation of currency, which would have to be addressed logically. I beleive the gold standard, or a standard based on a combination of commodities is the best system I have yet seen to keep inflation in check, assuming of course there is a way of addressing our current debt we accrued under this illegal, corrupt, unconstitutional federal reserve system created by business moguls like J.P. Morgan.)

[Osborn F Enready]

First off, Thank you for participating Sean. I am literally shocked to see you here, and I am glad you decided to join in.

Sean said:
I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

I say:
While I don't disagree that the current group of voters, of all ages, knew who they were voting for and also that they partake, and enjoy in some cases demagogic politics, I disagree that this is of their own doing. Most of it is learned reponses from "our" experiences in our life. All people alive today, limited by age, have no concept of revolution since none have existed in this nation since the civil war. Those who lived before us, much more clearly understood the threat of tyranny, the encroachment of power on liberty, and the true importance of being as free as possible to live life as you see fit. They more clearly saw the threat of authoritarianism, and its many veils of disguise. Reading about war, is nothing like being in a war, in the battle. Ask any person who has ever served in a war, and they will 90 to 1 agree. The same is true of education and understanding of the world we live in, and the governments we live under.

You have to remember that the media age has occurred within a lifespan, and we are seeing all the ill effects of misuse of that media compacted into a short period of time thanks to technology. The removal of liberty could have never happened this fast in an age of media limited to the written word, and that is THE most critical point of my statement.

Sean said:
This is the age of politics-made-easy. There are two parties, who have primary regulations, media frontloading, and all other sorts of protections from third parties, and the people like this. There is a right and left. They are no longer the confusing ideological cluster-coalitions they once were.

I say:
While that is the way the surface of the big picture looks, can you say it was arrived at honestly by the people finding their own "rut" through exploration of ideology, or being led to it by selective coverage by a corporate manipulated media, since about the end of World War II. The point must be made that since World War II and the creation of the New Deal, we have had non-stop wars of some degree going on all over the world, and this influences the tactics of the media on all levels. Media propaganda in the times of WWII DEFNITELY affected the perception of the government in the people. This was noticed. Propaganda has since been used to some degree in every level of commercialism, and media since. The FCC has consistently let down the people, since technically, the people OWN the airwaves, and have ultimate say. Most just aren't aware, because skeptical thought is not taught at the lower levels of education prior grade 12, thanks to public education, much less any in depth education about how and why the government exists, operates and derives its powers. All the things you mention can be changed by law, and done constitutionally.

Sean said:
Also, I think I am different from you in terms of interpreting the constitution. I see the constitution as a puzzle that we elect representatives to try to figure out. If we disapprove of their results we get new people. I do not see the constitution as something we can treat “strictly”.

I say:
I would have to ask how you got that interpretation, and I am not being sarcastic. Where do you derive this line of thinking, and what gives you a sense of being right in this interpretation? The Constitution was written in plain English so all could understand it very simply. There are rights, that we deem sacred, and those rights are the only essential things you need to understand to fully understand the reach of the law. That makes laws creation relatively simple, since you don't OUTLAW everything, you simply draw a common sense line as to where the limits are, and then investigate the case specifically, the job of the court. Remember, Thomas Paine named his call for revolution "Common Sense" for a reason. That reason is because all people can see the good in having the choice to live as you see fit with a bare minimum of limitations, and those limitations being the rights of others.

Sean said:
I think I also disagree with your push for less federal authority and more people-power. It seems to me the only thing "people power" has brought us is a corporate-controlled nightmare. It seems we have a choice of somewhat-controlling the elites via elections or letting them roam free. Our personal freedoms being enhanced via smaller federal government seems unlikely with the current power of actors within the global economy.

I say:
I disagree with how it happened, but I agree with what is here and now as you state. All the things that allowed these problems to occur, are clearly written in previous laws past. Corporatism can be directly linked to the removal of the peoples power, to actually "remove" the incorporated status of consortiums(?) we allowed to incorporate in the first place. They allowed corporation when there was a public call for it, and the good of the people could be shown in the use of the corporation. In these times, we have corporations that have become a burden, because they can't sustain in a business enviroment of their own accord(some due to infringement on the free market by protectionism) we are being asked as taxpayers, to BAIL THEM OUT, so they can CONTINUE to fail.
That is not how capitalism was designed, or intended to be used.

Sean said:
I should also note that I often change my mind about things. I am a flip-flopper. I have said it in a thread that asked me why I do not debate. My mind is constantly questioning itself. I am unsure about nearly everything

I say:
There is nothing wrong with flip-flopping if it is change based on new information that clears the picture of truth. But to do it as politicians of late do it, is shameful, shows lack of backbone, and is downright dishonest and in most cases for personal benefit.

I picture you as someone who does it based on what he knows, as opposed to for personal gain. That is not so bad, if it is done with the intent of finding truth, or as close as possible that can be achieved based on the facts.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Sean I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as be