Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: The Two Beasts

  1. #1 The Two Beasts 
    Guest
    ~Introduction~
    ~
    Democracy. Freedom. Justice. These and other words attempt to describe the entity that is the united states of America. Since the beginning of this country it has been a symbol of pride. The pride of America as a free country, the pride of Americans as educated and competent believers in a democratic system, the pride of our former leaders and forefathers, the pride of millions. These and similar factors accumulate into what we call our nation.

    I would like to take you back now, and quote some of our famous Founding Fathers. The very men that laid the foundation for our nation.

    "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. - George Washington "

    "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. - John Adams"

    "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson "

    "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty. - James Madison"

    So as you can see, are great nation is founded on a delicate balance. Knowledge, the forerunner to liberty, balances our nation. For without our knowledge we would quickly vote ourselves into a fascist regime. Indeed, Germany was originally a democratic nation before they voted in Hitler. So therefore the only thing keeping our nation free is our informed voting populous. But in recent years our country as had some of the worst problems its had in over a decade, and before we go about blaming our present leaders, we must point the finger on ourselves. For it is we that are to blame. We ended up with the government we deserved. Why do we deserve this government? We deserve it because our ignorance has prevented us from averting this catastrophe.

    In abandoning our books and turning towards the various media, in giving in to our religious bias, in giving in to simple competition between black and white (republican and democrat), in forgetting our forefathers wisdom, in letting ourselves be led by our own government, we have doomed ourselves to what is similar to a police state.

    We have been denied our own constitutional rights. We have even been denied our voice. Protest with people numbering in the thousands is generally ignored by our president and all our other political leaders. Why have the voices of Americans gone unheard? Why has our individuality been removed in place of federal laws? Why have Americans ignored all of this? If we truly have become ignorant, or apathetic, then our great nation will collapse. Be patriotic. Pick up a book.

    ~Republican~
    ~

    Ah, the noble and moral republican. I shall begin by doing as our forefathers have done. I shall pick up a "book". The first step in understanding problems with the government and with the most popular parties, is learning about them. So the first few paragraphs will be quotes about the history of the republican party.

    "The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge."

    "During the Civil War, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans."

    "The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control."

    "Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home."

    As we can plainly see, the republican party was definitely one worth voting for. Throughout their history they have supported freedom and justice. In fact they were the main party that granted freedoms to many minorities. Yet let us look and see what they do today. What follows are quotes of the recent philosophy and history. These quotes come from wikipedia, but can easily be found elsewhere.

    "Since 1980, the GOP has contained what George Will calls "unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern." The Western brand, wrote Will, "is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish." The Southern variety, however, reflects a religiosity based in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that is less concerned with economics and more with moralistic issues, such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting the waning influence of libertarian philosophy on contemporary Republican ideology, Will describes the current Republican Party as 'increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right.'"

    The once great individual freedom party, has since devolved into an evangelical-nut party. Our recent president is evidence of that. No longer does this once noble party stand for individual freedoms and what it originally stood for. Instead, it stands for the church. The very thing our forefathers went out of their way to prevent, even oppose. And with it goes half of our country that blindly follows this party "to the bottom of the stairs". To our doom. For the very thing this party once stood for, they now oppose. Instead of individual freedom, they would rather stick to their biased morals.

    Is this anti-freedom party one any of you would want to vote for? Most of you will say no. The reason you continue to vote for the same parties year after year, is because we still believe this party holds the same noble grace as it once did. Alas, that is no longer the case. We must now turn to our books and research to find an alternative. Do not vote for this party anymore, for it has lost its original path and is no longer for freedom for our founding principles. Instead, it is for its own religious gain, which is not freedom for many of us.

    What follows is a list of religious-biased examples to prove this party has indeed fallen. And fallen far.

    1. Opposing Gay marriage
    2. Opposing Separation of church and state
    3. Opposing freedom of choice (abortion)
    4. Supporting infringement on american privacy for "anti-terror"
    5. Supporting laws that infringe on our constitutional rights
    6. Opposes labor unions
    7. Opposes social security
    8. Opposes various forms of healthcare
    9. Supports the idea that Creationism be taught in schools and similar religious based ideas
    11. Opposes scientific research, mainly stem cells

    As you can see, they are indeed having a HEAVY government influence on the INDIVIDUAL. Their involvement in attempting to put religion in schools is a perfect example. No longer do republicans really care for the individual. They only care for those of their own religion.

    While it's true the Republican party, by default, should oppose government influence...does this include government aid? I listed their opposition to government aid, while citing their support of government-imposed religious influence, as a very strong example.

    ~Democrats~
    ~

    And who can forget the first major party formed? The democratic party. Quite old, and quite diverse. It's unfortunate that it has gotten the image of a "secular" party in recent years (largely thanks to evangelicals). Even more unfortunate that we have allowed ourselves to become so brainwashed that religion in government even matters.

    I would list historical quotes, only I found them unnecessary. This is because, after analyzing the democratic party, I've found their general stance on issues has remained the same throughout the years. Although this is not generally a good thing. The Democratic Party plays a HUGE role in our country, as they believe the government should play an active "motherly" role. As a result, we have heavy meddling in our economy and other areas of life. Some good has come out of this (surplus, government programs for the poor, etc), and also quite a bit of bad (inflation, increasing minimum wage, etc).

    Overall, the democrats are the ones we have called in when our country is in "deep shit". Generally the forerunner behind massive reforms and similar policies. This party is best described as a grenade. If you don't throw it soon after you pull the pin, you may not live to regret it.

    What I do find ironic, however, is that in recent years the Democratic party has had to take up the torch of Republicans. They have had to defend individual freedom when their ideology leans more towards Government influence. This is shown on their stance with abortion and similar matters.

    ~Libertarians~
    ~

    For those less informed about other parties besides the main Republican/Democrat ones, there are the Libertarians. Libertarians uphold the principle of individual liberty. They are, essentially, what the Republicans began as before they became "gods messengers".

    There is little else to say, as anything I say would merely be further quoting what's already written. Be patriotic. Pick up a book. You can start here

    I thought I might mention the Libertarian party to counterbalance the monster that the Republican party has become.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The problem today, choice of the two beast are the only viable conclusion to an election. Many conservatives, including myself, believe in true constitutional government. That simply explained as Federal Government is restricted to what the constitution authorized as responsibility of the Federal Government.

    As a self proclaimed agnostic its hard for me to argue *religion* with regards to the founders or todays society. IMO The founders generally were religious, but feared a STATE RELIGION, such has what England established a three hundred years earlier. To prevent this much of the constitution itself, the first 10 amendments, even the Federalist papers addressing this divide. Today, still the majority of Americans are religious and vote their attitude. In short no one is going to be elected to the head post, who disavows the majorities viewpoint.

    As for your list of "fallen" planks in the Republican platform. I am not sure the mainstream republican, conservative or not would agree that anything has fallen. The principles are there, but the laws have been circumvented to allow much of the apparent approval by who ever is in control. Might add *Federal Schools*-*Department of Education*, which gave birth to much of the problem, is/was opposed by the mainstream, Republican and some democrat. Reagan's platform intended to abolish both....

    One other minor point; Demographics of a population will play a large roll in what they choose to govern them. I might add even who is authorized with in those demographics. From the early mid-19th Century to today these statistics have changed enormously.

    ADMINISTRATION; Thanks for the new topic.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy
    Some good has come out of this (surplus, government programs for the poor, etc), and also quite a bit of bad (inflation, increasing minimum wage, etc).
    Very interesting post, but why is an "increasing minimum wage" a bad thing ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackson
    ADMINISTRATION; Thanks for the new topic.
    Same here, thanks.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Most economists agree. In a perfect world, increasing minimum wage would be good. Unfortunately, it only serves to cover up the real problem and eventually drive up prices as a whole (thus inevitably worsening problems).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Most economists agree. In a perfect world, increasing minimum wage would be good. Unfortunately, it only serves to cover up the real problem and eventually drive up prices as a whole (thus inevitably worsening problems).
    A job is a contract, an agreement between two people. Government should not concern itself with such social contracts - from a libertarian perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Jeremy...I don't know if you purposely intended it but what an ironic way to introduce politics to the forum with a filibuster post. I thought it was great.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Jeremy...I don't know if you purposely intended it but what an ironic way to introduce politics to the forum with a filibuster post. I thought it was great.
    Lol, no, I did not intend it. I just had it burning in my mind at the time. I would have written something MUCH longer, reviewing the various opinions of the populace, but I decided that even fewer people would read it regardless of how patriotic I aimed it.

    Brevity. Gotta love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The problem today, choice of the two beast are the only viable conclusion to an election. Many conservatives, including myself, believe in true constitutional government. That simply explained as Federal Government is restricted to what the constitution authorized as responsibility of the Federal Government.
    Quite the opposite. The problem today is that people BELIEVE that. There are many other viable (and superior) parties to choose for an election. The Libertarians, which I personally would vote for, are one of these parties.

    America is still a democracy. Our only fault is that we've stopped "reading". As I explained, be patriotic. Read a book. Knowledge is, essentially, the only way to defeat this black and white duality that has festered in our political system.

    Today, still the majority of Americans are religious and vote their attitude. In short no one is going to be elected to the head post, who disavows the majorities viewpoint.
    Thus my statement. America is soon becoming a police state due to our own ignorance and stupidity. Even worse, we vote based upon our RELIGIOUS preferences rather than DEMOCRATIC ones. Religion should never _ever_ influence an election.

    I think there should be a law that hides candidates religion from the rest of the country. Amongst other regulations. Vote based on what they're saying, not what they're religious preferences are.

    As for your list of "fallen" planks in the Republican platform. I am not sure the mainstream republican, conservative or not would agree that anything has fallen. The principles are there, but the laws have been circumvented to allow much of the apparent approval by who ever is in control.
    When a political party once stood for individual freedom, then became overrun with religious fanaticism...yes. It has fallen. By stereotype, republicans are southern religious hicks. While Democrats are wealthy non-theistic pricks.

    If you care to look at the statistics, the majority of _mainstream_ republicans are in fact heavily religious (either in political power or not). While democratic ones are much less so. Preferring, in an ironic twist of ideology, to push personal liberties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Jeremy; We pretty much have a 50-50, two party system. Thats just reality, not to my liking. If an electrifying candidate ran as a Libertarian or Newt G. ran under a new party, those voting for them would take from whomever runs as the Republican in 2008. If nothing else, I don't want to see, Mrs. Clinton or for that matter any of the Democrats, winning in 2008.
    I would rather vote for them, but it would not help the results and you do realize this...

    Cannot argue the religious angle. People are what they are, most have no idea what any candidate stands for, what his/her policies will be, but they can tell you what religion he/she is...Of our 43 elected Presidents, all were some form of Christan (2 non-denominational). Of course no candidate could be elected w/o knowledge of their religion, but I would rather know in advance if he/she was a practicing Muslim...

    Yes, Democrats tend toward liberalism. Equal rights for every one, regardless of their tolerance to the rest. Sorry, I just can't hate religious people, because thats the way they feel and they seem not to hate me for mine...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    I always find it amusing how Americans treat their Constitution as a third book of the Bible and quote the 'Founding Fathers' as some type of prophets brimming with wisdom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    I always find it amusing how Americans treat their Constitution as a third book of the Bible and quote the 'Founding Fathers' as some type of prophets brimming with wisdom.
    Thats the Yanks for you. They know everything, of course they do.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    I always find it amusing how Americans treat their Constitution as a third book of the Bible and quote the 'Founding Fathers' as some type of prophets brimming with wisdom.
    When you understand the power of the constitution - basically the contract between the government, what it can and can not do - you also understand the significance of the Founding Fathers, namely it were their views that were made into that constitution. But reviewing their views and their writings, one gains an insight on the possibilities of interpretation.

    To do away with this reference to the constitution as an American quirk is really being disrespectful to one's own constitution. Which in most other countries is rather disappointing when it comes to freedom from government. Most governments when forming their constitution understand all-too-well that infringing their possibilities as a government to oppress their people isn't that smart a thing to do. The founding fathers of the United States were dedicating to forming a New World without political oppression - and to the extent that I know of, religious oppression.

    Thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees with this, and when a non-Secular law is a violation of the first amendment and a secular law is a law that requires at least a non-religious reason to be valid, I'm quite happy with that constitution, with those founding fathers and how America is doing.

    Mind you, there are plenty of problems, but they certainly aren't with American's adoring their freedom-loving ancestors. If anything, they aren't doing that enough, and they aren't using their votes enough in that spirit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    I always find it amusing how Americans treat their Constitution as a third book of the Bible and quote the 'Founding Fathers' as some type of prophets brimming with wisdom.
    Everything needs to be judged and analyzed in the times they occur, IMO.

    Although the *US Constitution* is the Bible of my Nation, its the *Declaration of Independence* which was unique in its time. The final draft, completed 7/4/1776 by 56 signers from all the Colonies, includes in itself what became that Constitution.

    Any one is welcome to read this document and I suggest folks that do not understand the *American Patriot* do just that. In doing so, remember England from Henry VIII 1520 to George III was aggressive, openly building what was an empire.

    I don't think any of those involved with any of the documents or the War For Independence felt they were prophets and any wisdom came from some knowledge of History and knew the reasons so many came to America, in the first place. I suppose people and historians in later generations, realizing the changes those founders had on *Freedom* for Americans and the chain reactions which occurred through out the World, glorified their actions. It is the individuals right, after some research to accept or decline these findings. Mine is very simple; Whether intending or by chance, the *Founders* did in the end create the most prosperous, freedom loving, generous people under a governing system unmatched on the planet to this day.

    For what happens tomorrow, as time passes from the founding, its up to the people in the USA to maintain the levels of involvement the founders tried to instill....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    And also paved the way for other country's/states around the world to declare their own independence, such as the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico. Hopefully Taiwan will be next and perhaps even Hawaii.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    I'm new to this forum and I'm pleased to see some polite and reasoned discussion on scientific issues. I suppose this area of the forum is all about political science, and this thread pretty much sums up what I think about politics in the US. (I'm British, but living in the US with a Green Card). My observations are as follows:

    The Constitution of the US is an impressive achievement and the world would have been spared a huge amount of pain and distress if other emerging nations had used it as a starting point for their own system of Govt.

    There wasn't a Republican and Democratic party around at the time the Constitution was written. They only came much later. I am not a scholar of these matters but would be interested to know your thinking on whether the current 2-party conflict fits within the construct of Govt that the Constitution was intended to create. For example- the President takes an oath to protect the Constitution, yet he is not an impartial arbiter of legislation as he has allegiance to one Party over the other.

    The Constitution was written for 'small' Government - completely the opposite to what the Democrats prefer. The 'cabinet' came first, then it grew to multi-agency Govt, ie the 'Administration' today. The Administration is literally hundreds of leadership positions, each appointed by the President. I would be interested to know whether the Founding Fathers would write the Constitution differently if they had foreseen that the President would be able to appoint unelected persons to head all the major offices of State, and their staffs, and their subordinates all the way down, when the only check and balance is the committee approval by Congress (which under a 2 party system means majority = anyone gets in)

    I'm amazed that these Presidential candidates spend years campaigning and never get asked to reveal who is on their 'ticket' to be SecDef, SecState, etc. Should the Constitution be amended to allow the American people to elect an Adminstration, rather than just the head (President)?

    And no, I'm not a Troll! I hope you find my questions interesting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Gryphon; First as an occasional poster here, with American heritage from the 1500's and English back to 1000AD or so, welcome to this forum and the United States.

    Yes, our Constitution is a remarkable document, which was achieved from people, not unlike the Americans of today. The writers and contributors to both The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were a diverse group, with character traits from around the world, who somehow came up with a governing pact that has survived a great many test on its intent. However, you have probably heard of the *Magna Carta*, 1215 AD and the for runner of many Constitutions including the US, primarily under the bill of rights.

    George Washington, had no party affiliation, but all others have had and rarely have more than two parties resulted in less than 90% of the total electoral count. Ironically Thomas Jefferson and five or six after him were Democratic/Republicans. Republicans broke off in the 1830's, later (1856) becoming their own party, formed by members of three others, Lincoln of course the first Republican candidate....

    The Constitution was written, understanding that the US would grow, although I am not sure they figured on the extent. As for appointments made by the *Executive Branch*. He/She appoints only the heads of the departments. Each of these are then refereed to the Congress (Legislative Branch) under *Checks & Balance* for approval. Many time congress have not approved an appointee, for political reasons. These appointments include the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) and the District Courts, which also need Congressional approval.

    Potential presidential candidates (primary process) not only do NOT mention future Cabinet members, but rarely give our their desired Vice President candidate. It assumed these choices will be like minded people to the elected president, w/o bringing individual skeletons into play. There is plenty of time for that after *Taking Office* and the peoples choice to accept or reject is given through their elected House and Senate members.

    Hope this clears up some of the questions, for you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8
    Excellent info, thanks.

    I think the world really needs an 'exportable' Constitution 'self-help package' right now to help bring political stability to other countries. It might be something that American political scholars could develop and offer as part of diplomatic initiatives by the State Dept. However, taking into account the 2-party system and the mega-Administration that has grown up since it was written, it may have flaws that would limit its attractiveness to other potential Nations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The US, is a collection of 50 States (Republic), each with its own Constitution and laws. The Federal Constitution was written and is enforced to maintain the rights of each. It takes approval of 3/4 of the States, just to ratify the Federal Constitution and why so few amendments have been added. Although more for economic purposes, the European Community has adopted much of the US system. Any person from any place on earth, can study the US system. No effort IMO, should ever be made to impose one system over another...

    Economically, is a different story. As a Capitalistic/Free Market society most national interest around the world are participating. This includes China (Communist), Dubai (Islamic Monarchy) and a host with various forms of governing. In each country, standards of living, educational systems, human rights, legal systems and things which seem American are prevailing.

    The two party system, is only so, because of the people. In 2008, think there are actually 8 parties which will be on some States ballots and anyone can *write in* a vote. The *Electoral* count, which each State is "winner take all", makes it difficult for third, forth and so on party to thrive, on a National Basis. Many States have elected officials from most other parties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •