Religiousity of Politicians [Archive]

Shaun

01-08-2008, 08:10 PM

How can you call yourself religious if you are going to seperate yourself from your religion? Thats not a religion! Thats a hobby!

If you are a political party based on a religion (any religion), people won't vote you in if they don't like you. That being said, I don't see what the problem is.

When you start denying people the right to form parties or organisations based on religion, that is when you start denying basic freedoms.

No, you can base your party on whatever you please. You won't get into power if you're unpopular ANYWAY so there shouldnt be an issue if we got off our backsides and voted.

..

Pet peeve of mine ...

The problem with politicians that allow their religious beliefs to cloud their minds is that they make really bad decisions based on nothing more than faulty idiotic science. Take stem cell research. Bush cut the funding because of his "Christians beliefs", yet he'll wage war and vow to destroy the 'evil doers' no matter how un-Christian that might be. Religious politicians are hypocrites. Good religious politicians are ones that realize that their religious ideologies don't belong in the world of politics because it says so in that whole "separation of Church and State".
Technically speaking it is illegal to merge religious beliefs and politics. That's why some states actually prosecute pastors and priests (and similar positions) for using their religious power to push a certain political agenda. You're not allowed to actually discuss your voting preferences in a church. You can go to jail. The reason is because of the separation of church and state. You can't use religious power to push politics. It's illegal.
The other problem with religious candidates is that they aren't really Christians to begin with. They lie...a LOT. There's no such thing as an honest politician and they will say whatever they can to get themselves in office. Religious politicians have no problem doing things that would be considered immoral and make a lot of terrible, vile decisions. Show me a good outwardly religious candidate...

The Incredible Night Elf

01-08-2008, 08:16 PM

Speaking as Christian myself, I can tell you this ... George Bush is about the most un-Christian Christian I've ever known. Frankly, I find my religion being compared to him a little insulting.

I don't know much about American law, but I live in the UK where religious beliefs are still our right in every aspect of life (although people certainly seek to destroy it)

In anycase, I'm digressing..

The point im trying to make earlier remains valid..

if the public democratically vote in a religious group... who can possibly argue with that? Thats democracy!

Parties don't get voted in unless the majority like them! I mean thats undeniable. So - lets pretend I have a Christian party. And I propose various changes based on my faith...

if the public vote me in ... whats wrong with that? If the minority disagree, well.. thats too bad. Thats the way democracy is.

I think however, a party is shooting themselves in the foot by going on about their faith, since it is a dreadfully unpopular thing to do these days.

EDIT:

About your last point.. i agree entirely. Power corrupts, and any Christian will tell you that wealth, fame and power drag you away from Christ. The Bible says that. "the first will be last" and all that.

jordanisonfire

01-08-2008, 08:38 PM

Ah, all religions are crazy. One of the deadly sins is being unhappy. When I say that, I was like: what the fuck? :rolleyes:

Anyway, on a more serious note, I agree with Shaun that, sometimes, religion could cloud judgement. And, yes, Bush is a total bastard who has no idea that he is in fact performing the deadly sin represented by Satan (wrath). So, yeah, politics and religion don't go. If we have a religious politician, they shouldn't let their religion get in the way of things.

The Incredible Night Elf

01-08-2008, 08:45 PM

i see your point, but i think we have to walk a fine line between religion "getting in the way" and simply influencing our judgement.

We all have religious beliefs (even if those include this disbelief in any sort of God) and when you start banning politicians from having a faith, that starts us on a very slippery slope indeed.

Obviously, good judgement is a requirement. Certainly there are too many people in the world use religion (Christians, Muslims, everyone) as an excuse for evil.

jordanisonfire

01-08-2008, 08:47 PM

I never said we should ban religions from politicians, I just said that smart politicians wouldn't let their religion get in the way of things. I am parroting Shaun, really, but at least I'm expressing my views. :rolleyes:

Crocolyle

01-08-2008, 11:36 PM

The problem with politicians that allow their religious beliefs to cloud their minds is that they make really bad decisions based on nothing more than faulty idiotic science. Take stem cell research. Bush cut the funding because of his "Christians beliefs", yet he'll wage war and vow to destroy the 'evil doers' no matter how un-Christian that might be. Religious politicians are hypocrites. Good religious politicians are ones that realize that their religious ideologies don't belong in the world of politics because it says so in that whole "separation of Church and State".

I've agreed with you until here. I actually am undecided on embryonic stem cell research, but it makes sense why they're against it. Embryonic stem cell research requires Scientists to create and kill embryos in order extract the cells. According to the scientific law of abiogenesis fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm cell creates a human life--so naturally, by destroying it, you kill a human life. You are right though that it is hypocritical for many politicians to be against this destruction of human life, but support things like war and the death penalty, which also require the destruction of human life.

Moving on... because with that I was going off topic and I'm the one who created the topic... so...

I agree with Night Elf on some level: as members of a religion, politicians should vote with their convictions and personal beliefs in mind, but they need to be willing to examine their beliefs and understand if in their secular culture they're practical, and they must also be willing to compromise.

That being said, I don't think people should necessarily vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. They should vote for whomever they think will address the issues best. It's very likely that they will be of the same religion, but voting for someone who is clearly less qualified, is silly.

Earlier today I was reading what some people thought of Obama. Barak Obama is actually not the candidate I support (He's okay, but Richardson is my favorite Democrat, McCain is my favorite Republican. And Giuliani is pretty cool), and a lot of people were arguing that he would not be a good candidate because he's not a Christian, or at least not a devout one. (Obama actually is a Christian, even though he was raised Muslim.)

I personally don't see the rationality in this. So what if he isn't religious? How do his personal religious convictions matter in a system with a secular government? I would argue extremely devout Protestant candidates like George Bush, and possibly Huckabee, are more likely to hurt the country. It is these leaders whose lack of pragmatism and embrace of a clearly defined, black and white, authoritarian fundamentalist ideology who make decisions and refuse to cooperate in a mercifully inefficient system designed for compromise. Because of the gradual increase in presidential power since FDR, a leader who lets their religious convictions ultimately guide their policy is particularly dangerous, especially since Congress has no spine nowadays...

Nyx

01-08-2008, 11:59 PM

Speaking as Christian myself, I can tell you this ... George Bush is about the most un-Christian Christian I've ever known. Frankly, I find my religion being compared to him a little insulting.
That doesn't change the fact that he is still known as a Christian.

Ah, all religions are crazy. One of the deadly sins is being unhappy. When I say that, I was like: what the fuck? :rolleyes:

Haha.:rolleyes:

i see your point, but i think we have to walk a fine line between religion "getting in the way" and simply influencing our judgement.

We all have religious beliefs (even if those include this disbelief in any sort of God) and when you start banning politicians from having a faith, that starts us on a very slippery slope indeed.

I agree with everything Shaun said. I don't think anyone said anything about banning politicians with religious beleifs, I just don't think their Political decisions should be based on their religion.

Shaun

01-09-2008, 12:12 AM

Just to clarify, I'm not saying we should ban religion from politics or ban religious people from running. I'm saying that we should simply make it clear that politics shouldn't be run by religion. It should be run by the people. As soon as you say "cause God says so" it's no longer being run by people, but by a supreme dictator (I mean that in a good way), which isn't democracy anymore.

I've agreed with you until here. I actually am undecided on embryonic stem cell research, but it makes sense why they're against it. Embryonic stem cell research requires Scientists to create and kill embryos in order extract the cells. According to the scientific law of abiogenesis fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm cell creates a human life--so naturally, by destroying it, you kill a human life. You are right though that it is hypocritical for many politicians to be against this destruction of human life, but support things like war and the death penalty, which also require the destruction of human life.

Actually science says that life begins after about 14 days, or at least a form of life, though many still argue it's later. This argument was in another thread, so I won't bring it back up here :P. There's just a massive difference between destroying a bubble of little cells and a crying screaming baby...

I agree with Night Elf on some level: as members of a religion, politicians should vote with their convictions and personal beliefs in mind, but they need to be willing to examine their beliefs and understand if in their secular culture they're practical, and they must also be willing to compromise.

NO! Politicians need to realize that what the PEOPLE want is what is important. That's what we elect them for. What WE the PEOPLE want is all that matters. Politicians seem to have forgotten that. They seem to forget that we elect them to represent us, not to represent themselves or some crackpot ideology.
(I'm not mad, just making a point about the state of politics in democratic nations)

That being said, I don't think people should necessarily vote for someone just because they are of the same religion. They should vote for whomever they think will address the issues best. It's very likely that they will be of the same religion, but voting for someone who is clearly less qualified, is silly.

YES! YES oh god YES! Sorry, it's been a long time since I heard someone talk about voting intelligently! All voting should be done this way. Party voting should go away. In fact, all parties should go away and only have candidates...

Earlier today I was reading what some people thought of Obama. Barak Obama is actually not the candidate I support (He's okay, but Richardson is my favorite Democrat, McCain is my favorite Republican. And Giuliani is pretty cool), and a lot of people were arguing that he would not be a good candidate because he's not a Christian, or at least not a devout one. (Obama actually is a Christian, even though he was raised Muslim.)

You know, I never understood why religion becomes so important or why you have to be devout to be supported. I'm not Christian and I don't go to Church but I certainly hold most, if not all of the Christian beliefs (you know, the commandments and such). But you should be able to believe just about anything you want provided your beliefs aren't designed to hurt people. You can be a good politician and be Muslim or some other religion...

I personally don't see the rationality in this. So what if he isn't religious? How do his personal religious convictions matter in a system with a secular government? I would argue extremely devout Protestant candidates like George Bush, and possibly Huckabee, are more likely to hurt the country. It is these leaders whose lack of pragmatism and embrace of a clearly defined, black and white, authoritarian fundamentalist ideology who make decisions and refuse to cooperate in a mercifully inefficient system designed for compromise. Because of the gradual increase in presidential power since FDR, a leader who lets their religious convictions ultimately guide their policy is particularly dangerous, especially since Congress has no spine nowadays...

Honestly, all of the candidates besides Ron Paul are looking to bankrupt us. Even the democrats. Huckabee is absolutely crazy.
The disgusting part for me is how much our current president uses his veto power. Despite what we all say about stem cell research, the American people want it, the politicians want it, etc. Bush and his small cabinet and a tiny little minority of Americans don't want it. Yet Bush would deny his voters what they want...bad politics and idiocy.

Crocolyle

01-09-2008, 01:19 AM

NO! Politicians need to realize that what the PEOPLE want is what is important. That's what we elect them for. What WE the PEOPLE want is all that matters. Politicians seem to have forgotten that. They seem to forget that we elect them to represent us, not to represent themselves or some crackpot ideology.
(I'm not mad, just making a point about the state of politics in democratic nations)
Sometimes what the people want is crazy or irrational. The people don't always know what they want and what they think they want isn't always in the best interest of the country. Also the United States is not a true democracy and wasn't intended to be; the founding fathers were against majority rule. Minority Opinion must also be expected.

Also if the people vote for someone with strong religious convictions, that is an indication that the people want them to vote that way. Like, supporting Bush because his religious convictions make him prolife (No, I don't support Bush and yes I know the only power a President would have relating to that issue is the appointment of judges. I am prolife though [looks shifty]). Even though I have said people should not vote based on because so and so is or isn't religious/Christian, if you feel strongly about abortion, by all means vote for people against it.

YES! YES oh god YES! Sorry, it's been a long time since I heard someone talk about voting intelligently! All voting should be done this way. Party voting should go away. In fact, all parties should go away and only have candidates...

Federalist paper 52 (I think it's 52... can't remember). Madison on factions... necessary evil. I agree with you though parties will naturally rise among like-minded people. I think parties end up polarizing, forcing candidates to vote based on party lines. Also, unfortunately, parties in order to get funding have become slaves to the corporations.

You know, I never understood why religion becomes so important or why you have to be devout to be supported. I'm not Christian and I don't go to Church but I certainly hold most, if not all of the Christian beliefs (you know, the commandments and such). But you should be able to believe just about anything you want provided your beliefs aren't designed to hurt people. You can be a good politician and be Muslim or some other religion...

I agree completely. The problem is most people for some reason think those who go to church are more moral, which is a misconception. I personally am not religious and don't have any strong faith in any sort of deity (I'm sort of an agnostic who poses as a cafeteria C&E Catholic), but if I have children, I'd raise them Christian and even, assuming I have enough money, try to send them through 12 years of Catholic school.

Honestly, all of the candidates besides Ron Paul are looking to bankrupt us. Even the democrats. Huckabee is absolutely crazy.
The disgusting part for me is how much our current president uses his veto power. Despite what we all say about stem cell research, the American people want it, the politicians want it, etc. Bush and his small cabinet and a tiny little minority of Americans don't want it. Yet Bush would deny his voters what they want...bad politics and idiocy.

I don't think the minority is that tiny. And it's not stem cell research that they're against, it's only embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryos. Maybe in California a lot of people are for it, but in MD I know plenty who are against it. Also, Bush's base is against it, because the nuts liked him.

Ron Paul is pretty cool, though I think he's a little extreme in his wanting to shrink the size of the government.

Shaun

01-09-2008, 04:37 PM

Sometimes what the people want is crazy or irrational. The people don't always know what they want and what they think they want isn't always in the best interest of the country. Also the United States is not a true democracy and wasn't intended to be; the founding fathers were against majority rule. Minority Opinion must also be expected.

Well, no, we're technically a representative republic. But we have to be very very very careful how much control we give to the minority and whether giving that control is acceptable for everyone. If 3 people want free healthcare and we give it to everyone (assuming we can afford it), that's a good thing. But if 3 people want Hitler to be resurrected from the dead to fight off all the colored folk and Jews...well, we probably shouldn't give them their desires :P.
I think what the founding fathers wanted was a democratic method that allowed for some compromise with minorities, but never as much compromise as we have today. The fact is that the American public is very clear about what it wants right now, and our politicians aren't giving it to us. We don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants, we want better healthcare or a universal program, or at least cheaper quality healthcare. We want better prescription drug prices and fuel efficient cars and for Big Business to get their bloody noses out of politics and for oil companies to stop stabbing us in the back while making record profits and instead invest in alternate fuel sources that are environmentally safe, cost effective, and renewable...
We don't have any of those. In fact, we're probably going to end up with the exact opposite after this coming election...

Also if the people vote for someone with strong religious convictions, that is an indication that the people want them to vote that way. Like, supporting Bush because his religious convictions make him prolife (No, I don't support Bush and yes I know the only power a President would have relating to that issue is the appointment of judges. I am prolife though [looks shifty]). Even though I have said people should not vote based on because so and so is or isn't religious/Christian, if you feel strongly about abortion, by all means vote for people against it.

Well of course. You should vote for who you think will do a good job, but their religious affiliation should have nothing to do with it. You don't have to be Christian to be pro-life, just as you don't have to be an atheist to be pro-science.

Federalist paper 52 (I think it's 52... can't remember). Madison on factions... necessary evil. I agree with you though parties will naturally rise among like-minded people. I think parties end up polarizing, forcing candidates to vote based on party lines. Also, unfortunately, parties in order to get funding have become slaves to the corporations.

A way to resolve that issue is to implement a UK system in which all candidates get a budget cap and get the same air time and radio time. It evens out the playing field. We might also consider opening up an 'election fund' which would be used primarily for candidates to use as campaign funding, each candidate getting the exact same amount. Fund raising is really just stupid.

I don't think the minority is that tiny. And it's not stem cell research that they're against, it's only embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryos. Maybe in California a lot of people are for it, but in MD I know plenty who are against it. Also, Bush's base is against it, because the nuts liked him.

It's pretty small. It seems bigger than it really is because big mouth religious nuts (yes, these guys are nuts because they line their pockets with lots of money from their fellow religious patrons while doing little to nothing to better America socially...often times they're fat old white men who would rather shoot poor people than help them) are babbling about it. Most people are okay with embryonic stem cell research.
Bush abuses his power, as I've said. He vetoes things that shouldn't be vetoes based on PERSONAL bias, not on any understanding of the facts or because it thinks it is good for the country. Embryonic stem cell research is revolutionary and has produced treatments for diseases we didn't have treatments for before, but cutting funding from such programs prevents us from being innovative and creating new methods that don't use embryonic stem cells. If the project had been funded properly to begin with we'd have had the tech we have now five years ago...

Ron Paul is pretty cool, though I think he's a little extreme in his wanting to shrink the size of the government.

Oh I fully agree. He has a lot of good ideas, but some of his stuff is too much. I align more with John Edwards on a lot of things, but to be honest...I'm just not voting. Everyone who is running and has a shot to win is either crazy or has an idiotic position on illegal immigration...

Crocolyle

01-09-2008, 05:41 PM

I think what the founding fathers wanted was a democratic method that allowed for some compromise with minorities, but never as much compromise as we have today. The fact is that the American public is very clear about what it wants right now, and our politicians aren't giving it to us. We don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants, we want better healthcare or a universal program, or at least cheaper quality healthcare. We want better prescription drug prices and fuel efficient cars and for Big Business to get their bloody noses out of politics and for oil companies to stop stabbing us in the back while making record profits and instead invest in alternate fuel sources that are environmentally safe, cost effective, and renewable...
We don't have any of those. In fact, we're probably going to end up with the exact opposite after this coming election...

The founding fathers were actually pretty clear. James Madison wrote in federalist paper no. 10, while speaking of factions said that in order to preserve the public good, majority opinion must be restricted and bogged down and carefully examined to prevention oppression of the minority and prevent the government from being ruled by whatever the popular passion is that day of the week.

Not everyone wants the same things - I'm for amnesty of illegal immigrants (or a guest worker program or something), against universal healthcare, and I know a lot of people who agree with me on these issues. The American public is not clear on what it wants and is currently polarized. In fact, one of the main reasons Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are disliked is because of their near-socialist views on healthcare.

Well of course. You should vote for who you think will do a good job, but their religious affiliation should have nothing to do with it. You don't have to be Christian to be pro-life, just as you don't have to be an atheist to be pro-science.

Exactly, but it's more likely to be Christian and pro-life.

A way to resolve that issue is to implement a UK system in which all candidates get a budget cap and get the same air time and radio time. It evens out the playing field. We might also consider opening up an 'election fund' which would be used primarily for candidates to use as campaign funding, each candidate getting the exact same amount. Fund raising is really just stupid.

I didn't know that you were for limiting free expression. We actually do have a law in place (McCain-Feingold) that creates a budget cap (that are easily overcome by shadow political parties), but I am against it. Funding a candidate is a way of saying, "I support him/her" and to place a budget cap is to limit free expression, one of the founding principles of our nation. Likewise giving equal airtime is equally stupid because that limits the opinion of broadcasting corporation. There is a media bias, because our government allows a media bias, and thank god for that.

It's pretty small. It seems bigger than it really is because big mouth religious nuts (yes, these guys are nuts because they line their pockets with lots of money from their fellow religious patrons while doing little to nothing to better America socially...often times they're fat old white men who would rather shoot poor people than help them) are babbling about it. Most people are okay with embryonic stem cell research.
Bush abuses his power, as I've said. He vetoes things that shouldn't be vetoes based on PERSONAL bias, not on any understanding of the facts or because it thinks it is good for the country. Embryonic stem cell research is revolutionary and has produced treatments for diseases we didn't have treatments for before, but cutting funding from such programs prevents us from being innovative and creating new methods that don't use embryonic stem cells. If the project had been funded properly to begin with we'd have had the tech we have now five years ago...

Most people I know are against embryonic stem cell research. Regional difference?

If congress feels so strongly about what he vetoed, they can override it. Unless popular opinion is not as large as you think it is...

Shaun

01-09-2008, 06:55 PM

The founding fathers were actually pretty clear. James Madison wrote in federalist paper no. 10, while speaking of factions said that in order to preserve the public good, majority opinion must be restricted and bogged down and carefully examined to prevention oppression of the minority and prevent the government from being ruled by whatever the popular passion is that day of the week.

Not everyone wants the same things - I'm for amnesty of illegal immigrants (or a guest worker program or something), against universal healthcare, and I know a lot of people who agree with me on these issues. The American public is not clear on what it wants and is currently polarized. In fact, one of the main reasons Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are disliked is because of their near-socialist views on healthcare.

Rewarding people for breaking the law degrades the value of the law in the first place. That's why I'm against amnesty for illegal immigrants. The word "ILLEGAL" is in the name for a reason. They don't belong here and to grant them amnesty or give them any sort of handout not only degrades the law and makes it next to worthless, something our President seems to want to do, but it's also a nice shit in the face for all those immigrants who actually went through the right process. By the way, it is NOT hard to get a green card. It's not. It's easy and they let people in all the time. It's only hard to gain citizenship, which is should be. You should have to work for that.
And the founding fathers also lived in a society where the minority were people who were poor, enslaved, or some such. There's a limit to majority rule, but there is a huge limit to minority rule and right now we are overburdened with bullcrap programs that help minority groups (not ethnic groups, but minority groups) when they don't need the help at all.

I didn't know that you were for limiting free expression. We actually do have a law in place (McCain-Feingold) that creates a budget cap (that are easily overcome by shadow political parties), but I am against it. Funding a candidate is a way of saying, "I support him/her" and to place a budget cap is to limit free expression, one of the founding principles of our nation. Likewise giving equal airtime is equally stupid because that limits the opinion of broadcasting corporation. There is a media bias, because our government allows a media bias, and thank god for that.

I'm not for limiting free expression. I'm making it so people who don't have big business nuts supporting them can still be able to express themselves in an election at the same level as those that have taken monetary bribes from corporations. If anything, the system we have now limits free expression.
Placing a budget cap means that everyone is on the same playing field. It doesn't limit expression at all. It allows everyone to express equally, which is the whole point of free expression--equal expression. No limiting necessary. It increases it :P. More people get heard.
Right, okay, so for those that can't pay the millions upon millions to put up dozens of TV ads we should just say 'well, sorry, but oil companies don't support you this year' and shove them away. That's free expression? It's the opposite. The system we have now shuts down expression.

Most people I know are against embryonic stem cell research. Regional difference?

If congress feels so strongly about what he vetoed, they can override it. Unless popular opinion is not as large as you think it is...

It's not a matter of congress overriding him. He's not vetoeing bills that actually hurt Americans, but he vetoes ones that would help them all because he has a personal bias. He doesn't know the science and won't listen to it either. The veto is meant for turning down things that are detrimental to American society. Like the Patriot Act, which basically removed a good chunk of the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and then the revision which didn't change anything. More reasons why we have to be careful when we listen to the minority. We end up with stupid things like that just because a couple million people are paranoid. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for national security, especially when such security has been proven not to work.
This goes for his supreme judges, who are now residing over technology lawsuits. None of the judges know enough about technology to adequately pass judgment.
And, yes it is a regional difference. The majority actually support embryonic stem cell research. Polls reflect that.

Crocolyle

01-09-2008, 07:39 PM

Rewarding people for breaking the law degrades the value of the law in the first place. That's why I'm against amnesty for illegal immigrants. The word "ILLEGAL" is in the name for a reason. They don't belong here and to grant them amnesty or give them any sort of handout not only degrades the law and makes it next to worthless, something our President seems to want to do, but it's also a nice shit in the face for all those immigrants who actually went through the right process. By the way, it is NOT hard to get a green card. It's not. It's easy and they let people in all the time. It's only hard to gain citizenship, which is should be. You should have to work for that.
And the founding fathers also lived in a society where the minority were people who were poor, enslaved, or some such. There's a limit to majority rule, but there is a huge limit to minority rule and right now we are overburdened with bullcrap programs that help minority groups (not ethnic groups, but minority groups) when they don't need the help at all.

This isn't a debate over illegal immigration--the point is not everyone shares your view in the matter. Just because they are things that you think we should have, and think are logical to have, does not mean that everyone wants that. You have been making sweeping generalizations about what the American people want in regards to complex issues with polarized supporters and detractors, when you are only saying what you want.

Could you provide an example of one of these "bullcrap programs" that help those with minority opinions? Do you mean how the senate is a check on the house (having members who serve two year terms proportional to state populations allows them to quickly muster support based on the popular majority opinion, but then when the senate, which gives equal voice to all the states with members who serve longer terms, reviews the bill and makes it less radical and shoots down sometimes almost decisions that were popular in the house) or how the filibuster is allowed in the senate?

I'm not for limiting free expression. I'm making it so people who don't have big business nuts supporting them can still be able to express themselves in an election at the same level as those that have taken monetary bribes from corporations. If anything, the system we have now limits free expression.
Placing a budget cap means that everyone is on the same playing field. It doesn't limit expression at all. It allows everyone to express equally, which is the whole point of free expression--equal expression. No limiting necessary. It increases it :P. More people get heard.
Right, okay, so for those that can't pay the millions upon millions to put up dozens of TV ads we should just say 'well, sorry, but oil companies don't support you this year' and shove them away. That's free expression? It's the opposite. The system we have now shuts down expression.

Equal expression is not free expression. If I'm not allowed to donate money to the candidate of my choice, a freedom to make a political statement is being taken away from me. Equality and fairness are not the same thing as freedom.

It's not a matter of congress overriding him. He's not vetoeing bills that actually hurt Americans, but he vetoes ones that would help them all because he has a personal bias. He doesn't know the science and won't listen to it either. The veto is meant for turning down things that are detrimental to American society. Like the Patriot Act, which basically removed a good chunk of the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and then the revision which didn't change anything. More reasons why we have to be careful when we listen to the minority. We end up with stupid things like that just because a couple million people are paranoid. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for national security, especially when such security has been proven not to work.
This goes for his supreme judges, who are now residing over technology lawsuits. None of the judges know enough about technology to adequately pass judgment.
And, yes it is a regional difference. The majority actually support embryonic stem cell research. Polls reflect that.

He has a bias because he thinks it's immoral and so does his base. In order to respect the opinion of those who supports him, he would naturally need to be against it. He believes it hurts Americans, so he thinks he's acting in the best interest of the nation.

No, actually the veto exists so Congress doesn't get too powerful.

The Declaration of Independence, while a culturally significant document, does not grant us any freedoms, whatsoever.

Polls oftentimes are inaccurate and the majority probably isn't overwhelming.

Shaun

01-09-2008, 09:10 PM

This isn't a debate over illegal immigration--the point is not everyone shares your view in the matter. Just because they are things that you think we should have, and think are logical to have, does not mean that everyone wants that. You have been making sweeping generalizations about what the American people want in regards to complex issues with polarized supporters and detractors, when you are only saying what you want.

I've been making generalizations about what the American people actually want. Such things are reflected in polls nationwide. What I want is an option I know isn't available, which is to round them all up like cattle and ship them back. If we want to go with what I want, we can, and it won't be pretty.
What I think we should have in this country is people who can actually think. We're desperately in need of it. Clearly illegal immigration is an example of such a subject. Illegal immigrant and illegal gambling are both things we have laws for. When you take off the illegal, both things are fine, but with the illegal attached...well...it's pretty clear.

Could you provide an example of one of these "bullcrap programs" that help those with minority opinions? Do you mean how the senate is a check on the house (having members who serve two year terms proportional to state populations allows them to quickly muster support based on the popular majority opinion, but then when the senate, which gives equal voice to all the states with members who serve longer terms, reviews the bill and makes it less radical and shoots down sometimes almost decisions that were popular in the house) or how the filibuster is allowed in the senate?

No, that would be a rather weird example. The filibuster isn't entirely bad. If it's done right it can be used for good.
I'm talking about a good portion of special interest programs. Reparations and payments for past deeds. Laws that grant freedoms to one minority, but remove freedoms from other minorities or even majorities (referring primarily to a good portion of racial laws), anything to do with affirmative action. At one point it was a good idea, but right now it seems wrong to require government quotas on business to have to choose people from certain races on purpose. Those would be good examples of things given to minority opinions that don't need to exist.

Equal expression is not free expression. If I'm not allowed to donate money to the candidate of my choice, a freedom to make a political statement is being taken away from me. Equality and fairness are not the same thing as freedom.

No it's not. If you donate $1 and some big business man donates 20 million, nobody will know you donated a dollar anyway. You won't be expressing anything. Donating money isn't a form of expression.
If equality isn't freedom, then by all means let's go back to the days of slavery and racial oppression, since the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was supposed to grant the same rights and freedoms to every, therefore making equality a staple unit of freedom.

He has a bias because he thinks it's immoral and so does his base. In order to respect the opinion of those who supports him, he would naturally need to be against it. He believes it hurts Americans, so he thinks he's acting in the best interest of the nation.

I'm not denying that. That doesn't make it the right decision.

No, actually the veto exists so Congress doesn't get too powerful.

Yes, but the President must use it with discretion, not whenever he feels like it.

The Declaration of Independence, while a culturally significant document, does not grant us any freedoms, whatsoever.

It's the most important document in American history. It's a declaration that has legal power provided we still believe in it. The day we lose site of that is the day it loses all value and anything we went through during the revolution was pointless.

Shaun

01-09-2008, 09:23 PM

On the subject of polls. I went around looking at what various places are saying. It's pretty hilarious. All sites that are clearly already against it and have religious reasons for being against it report figures that suggest most Americans are against it, but places that are impartial and don't have a site report that more Americans are for it now than they were in 2001. Considering that religious sites like to skew data and lie about stuff, I'll side with the impartial side. Sites that are for stem cell do report that more Americans are for it than against, but not nearly as much as impartial sites...it's interesting really.

Crocolyle

01-09-2008, 09:33 PM

I've been making generalizations about what the American people actually want. Such things are reflected in polls nationwide. What I want is an option I know isn't available, which is to round them all up like cattle and ship them back. If we want to go with what I want, we can, and it won't be pretty.
What I think we should have in this country is people who can actually think. We're desperately in need of it. Clearly illegal immigration is an example of such a subject. Illegal immigrant and illegal gambling are both things we have laws for. When you take off the illegal, both things are fine, but with the illegal attached...well...it's pretty clear.

[quote]
No, that would be a rather weird example. The filibuster isn't entirely bad. If it's done right it can be used for good.
I'm talking about a good portion of special interest programs. Reparations and payments for past deeds. Laws that grant freedoms to one minority, but remove freedoms from other minorities or even majorities (referring primarily to a good portion of racial laws), anything to do with affirmative action. At one point it was a good idea, but right now it seems wrong to require government quotas on business to have to choose people from certain races on purpose. Those would be good examples of things given to minority opinions that don't need to exist.

The filibuster is awesome. Those are ethnic minorities, not minority opinions. Ethnic minorities don't have much to do with the topic.

No it's not. If you donate $1 and some big business man donates 20 million, nobody will know you donated a dollar anyway. You won't be expressing anything. Donating money isn't a form of expression.
If equality isn't freedom, then by all means let's go back to the days of slavery and racial oppression, since the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was supposed to grant the same rights and freedoms to every, therefore making equality a staple unit of freedom.

Supporting a candidate is an example of political expression, whether you chose to do it by donating money or attending a rally.

If people have money they should be free to spend it as they please (assuming what they're doing isn't physically hurting anyone). I'm not against equality--until you start taking away freedoms in the name of equality. Like smart people are free to pursue jobs that stupid people aren't free to pursue. That is an example of inequality. Rich people can own bigger houses than the poor. That is an example of inequality. But yet to pursue mentally taxing careers and to own big houses if they can afford them are freedoms people have. To deny these people freedoms in the name of equality is unfair and communistic.

Once I read a dystopian story about a society whose primary goal was equality. Physically attractive people had to wear masks, smart people had a chip inserted in their head that would create a sharp distracting noise, people who were particularly graceful were weighted down with metal so they'd lose their balance as frequently as clumsy people. Equality and freedom while often related are not the same.

It's the most important document in American history. It's a declaration that has legal power provided we still believe in it. The day we lose site of that is the day it loses all value and anything we went through during the revolution was pointless.

You said we get rights from it. It's not the source of rights, it's just the document that said we were breaking away from England.

Shaun

01-09-2008, 09:51 PM

The filibuster is awesome. Those are ethnic minorities, not minority opinions. Ethnic minorities don't have much to do with the topic.

You asked for examples and I gave them to you. :P.

If people have money they should be free to spend it as they please (assuming what they're doing isn't physically hurting anyone). I'm not against equality--until you start taking away freedoms in the name of equality. Like smart people are free to pursue jobs that stupid people aren't free to pursue. That is an example of inequality. Rich people can own bigger houses than the poor. That is an example of inequality. But yet to pursue mentally taxing careers and to own big houses if they can afford them are freedoms people have. To deny these people freedoms in the name of equality is unfair and communistic.

Economic inequality doesn't exist in America. Using the rich/poor example doesn't work. All people in America have the same opportunities. We all have the option to go to school, get an education, and get better jobs. We all have the option to earn money and work in the stock market and trade stocks. The means to become rich are here. Some will be rich, some won't, but that doesn't mean it's unequal. We all have the same change of getting there.
Stupid people are free to pursue anything they want, they just might not get the job. But stupid people are stupid by their own choice, unless they have a mental problem. Yet we give mentally handicapped people jobs and the like and nobody throws a fit over that because it's the right thing to do. All normal people have the same opportunities and if you decide not to educate yourself, then don't come crying to the government if you can't get a big paycheck.
Fair elections is what this country needs. Not more of the same. Elections don't work in this country. We've seen that time and time again. The reason being that politicians are more inclined to side with the large, money grubbing corporations that fund their campaigns than the regular every day folk who can't give them millions of dollars. That has to stop. That's call manipulation and bribery.

Once I read a dystopian story about a society whose primary goal was equality. Physically attractive people had to wear masks, smart people had a chip inserted in their head that would create a sharp distracting noise, people who were particularly graceful were weighted down with metal so they'd lose their balance as frequently as clumsy people. Equality and freedom while often related are not the same.

...you're taking things all the way to the extreme here. I'm not talking about making things outside of our control equal. That's retarded. I'm saying evening out the playing field so we the people have the ability to make accurate decisions, rather than simply choosing from the 2 people who happened to have the most money. Money shouldn't be a concern in elections, except as far as budgeting is concerned.

You said we get rights from it. It's not the source of rights, it's just the document that said we were breaking away from England.

Technically we do get rights from it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They just aren't rights we really take into consideration. It's not the same as the Constitution, but it's certainly important in defining how we should live.

Crocolyle

01-10-2008, 02:39 AM

We've kind of digressed way off topic...

Economic inequality doesn't exist in America. Using the rich/poor example doesn't work. All people in America have the same opportunities. We all have the option to go to school, get an education, and get better jobs. We all have the option to earn money and work in the stock market and trade stocks. The means to become rich are here. Some will be rich, some won't, but that doesn't mean it's unequal. We all have the same change of getting there.

Sure there is more social mobility than many other societies, but economic equally doesn't truly exist. Public schools in poorer areas tend to be less funded, the brains of children who live in the inner cities and do not receive proper nutrition because of their poverty do not develop to the extent that they could, not all people are capable of becoming skilled, not all people are creative, intelligent, or charismatic enough to break out of their cycle of poverty.

In the United States, we are brainwashed from a young age to think that we can be whoever, whatever we want. We are brainwashed to think that there truly is equality in our country. But this brainwashing makes us delusional, because not all people will have the same opportunities, the same chances, or even the ability to succeed. You can work hard and still fail. Sure the means to become rich are available to everyone, but their availability is hugely unequal. Very few presidents and politicians--some, but very few--were lower class. You can argue until you're blue in the face that we have an equal opportunity of success, when once the facts are examined is not true.

Fair elections is what this country needs. Not more of the same. Elections don't work in this country. We've seen that time and time again. The reason being that politicians are more inclined to side with the large, money grubbing corporations that fund their campaigns than the regular every day folk who can't give them millions of dollars. That has to stop. That's call manipulation and bribery.

No, it's called garnering support through people who have the means to express themselves monetarily. Their really isn't any way to prevent candidates from receiving funding. McCain-Feingold failed.

I think corporations are typically evil and should be restricted in many cases, but I don't think ones political expression should be restricted. And I believe that showing your candidate support through money is a type of expression.

Technically we do get rights from it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They just aren't rights we really take into consideration. It's not the same as the Constitution, but it's certainly important in defining how we should live.

It embodies some of the American ideals and expresses how the British government violated the colonists' rights as British citizens, yes, but it does not actually give any American any rights. To say that it does shows complete ignorance of our system of government. Our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence. It's a letter to the king of England, that really is all it is. You know "You've ravaged our coasts, plundered our seas, impressed our sailors, killed our puppies, etc." The statement of those rights merely provides a basis for separation. A letter to the King George III does not grant the citizens of a nation rights.

Shaun

01-10-2008, 03:52 AM

We've kind of digressed way off topic...

Of course we have :P. What would a good, exciting debate be without wandering around a bit? :). Besides, this is fun! Or I think so. You're bringing up a lot of good points, and yeah :).

Sure there is more social mobility than many other societies, but economic equally doesn't truly exist. Public schools in poorer areas tend to be less funded, the brains of children who live in the inner cities and do not receive proper nutrition because of their poverty do not develop to the extent that they could, not all people are capable of becoming skilled, not all people are creative, intelligent, or charismatic enough to break out of their cycle of poverty.

Well, unfortunately the state systems base education funds a lot on population. Poorer schools often times are in rural areas where there aren't a lot of people. There are also urban schools in bad, poor city areas, which unfortunately lose a lot of funding on things like security, which really stinks because that money should go to teaching the kids, but the teachers have no choice but to take measures to keep their students safe...One thing I think we need to abolish in the education system is this notion that just because a school gets better grades it should get more money. Really we should even out the schools and make sure that all of them are properly funded so there is never a case where supplies are low. Unfortunately, all public schools have funding issues.
The problem with inner city kids is that they are often exposed early to methods of living that we would consider detrimental to one's health. This is particularly true in Oakland. It's probably a combination of the social structure and family structure, but regardless there is little that a teacher can do to get rid of the sort of 'criminal thinking' that plagues places like Oakland. I think we do need to make a distinction on the notion of 'intelligence'. What exactly makes someone intelligent? If you can solve a complex math problem in 2 seconds? Well what about someone who can open the hood of a car that is having problems and know almost immediately what is wrong? Isaac Asimov was a genius, literally, a science fiction writer, and a renowned scientist. Yet even he could acknowledge that what is considered intelligent by society is only one preconceived notion of intelligence. He referred to what his auto mechanic could do as something beyond him, a man of high IQ and high academic standing, and that we simply don't understand the reality that people are intelligent in different ways.
All people are capable of learning a skill. Certainly not all people can learn the same skill. Some of us are scientifically minded, some of us are mechanically minded, some of us have some other kind of mind, but we all are given the opportunities to do something. Granted, some areas may have lower standards within the education system, but it is still there for you and there are options.
We in America have this obsession with 'I can't do it', when really you can. You can break out of poverty if you are willing to do the work. For some that means working your ass off, maybe working two jobs and going to college, or whatever. But you can still make it if you are willing to work for it. Not all people who become rich started out that way, and not all of them are geniuses. Some are just lucky, or worked really hard.
I think that line of thinking, though, is the biggest problem. They think they can't get out...but they can...they just give up too early. I've known people who are not geniuses. They couldn't get through college level math, but they could do other things and they worked hard to get where they are. Stephen King wasn't always successful. He spent part of his life living in a trailer home with only a typewriter and no power...and now, after never giving up and trying and trying, he's rich. Most people might not be able to pull that off, but they could do other things. Everyone has a skill, they just have to find out what it is.
I do understand what you are saying, but I think we need to train the belief that just because you're poor and live in a crappy area you won't ever amount to anything...
Although, I believe that inner city areas need to be policed and fixed, desperately...

In the United States, we are brainwashed from a young age to think that we can be whoever, whatever we want. We are brainwashed to think that there truly is equality in our country. But this brainwashing makes us delusional, because not all people will have the same opportunities, the same chances, or even the ability to succeed. You can work hard and still fail. Sure the means to become rich are available to everyone, but their availability is hugely unequal. Very few presidents and politicians--some, but very few--were lower class. You can argue until you're blue in the face that we have an equal opportunity of success, when once the facts are examined is not true.

Oh I know. I used to believe I could be an astronaut, but they don't take people with asthma. I will concede that there are things we all can't do in life. I can't be an astronaut and I'll probably never see space with my own eyes, which depresses me. But I can do other things. Some people aren't 'smart' enough for college, but they can work as a technician or something else. You don't need a lot of skills to be a dumptruck driver, and yet they make a lot of money.
We have the same opportunity for success everywhere. That's the fact. Some of us just think we don't, and some of us have to work harder for it. Success can be measured as being rich or just making it out of poverty and being comfortable. I suppose you could say it is unequal because people from different places or social situations have to work differently, but at least the opportunity is there for everyone.

No, it's called garnering support through people who have the means to express themselves monetarily. Their really isn't any way to prevent candidates from receiving funding. McCain-Feingold failed.

There will be. I imagine that Americans will get sick of the uneven, unfair election scheme.

I think corporations are typically evil and should be restricted in many cases, but I don't think ones political expression should be restricted. And I believe that showing your candidate support through money is a type of expression.

A corporation isn't a someone. It's an economic entity and not a person. So technically speaking it does not have the same rights as you or I. So, a corporation donating money to a candidate isn't like a person doing it. And what it is...is bribery, or a form of it. Corporations use money to get the votes they want. That's evil and wrong, not to mention unethical.

It embodies some of the American ideals and expresses how the British government violated the colonists' rights as British citizens, yes, but it does not actually give any American any rights. To say that it does shows complete ignorance of our system of government. Our government is not based on the Declaration of Independence. It's a letter to the king of England, that really is all it is. You know "You've ravaged our coasts, plundered our seas, impressed our sailors, killed our puppies, etc." The statement of those rights merely provides a basis for separation. A letter to the King George III does not grant the citizens of a nation rights.

I'm afraid the Declaration is far more important and influential in our country than you think. It's the foundation of everything we became. It was the start of everything, the document that defined the things we were pissed about and what things we had the right to do as people. If anything, it is the first declaration of our rights, even if such rights could be considered already existent. The Constitution wasn't even adopted until 1787 and while the Constitution certainly is a document of more importance as far as rights are concerned, the Declaration was deeply involved in the rule of natural law and the rights of all people.
I see what you are saying. The Declaration isn't like the Constitution in that the rights are all laid out in order, or offer very specific, defined rights, but it does offer the first rights that the United States adopted, which are rights that the signers believed were the rights of all people.

Crocolyle

01-11-2008, 01:44 AM

Of course we have :P. What would a good, exciting debate be without wandering around a bit? :). Besides, this is fun! Or I think so. You're bringing up a lot of good points, and yeah :).

Of course! I wouldn't debate with you if it wasn't a lot of fun. You bring up a lot of good points also.

Well, unfortunately the state systems base education funds a lot on population. Poorer schools often times are in rural areas where there aren't a lot of people. There are also urban schools in bad, poor city areas, which unfortunately lose a lot of funding on things like security, which really stinks because that money should go to teaching the kids, but the teachers have no choice but to take measures to keep their students safe...One thing I think we need to abolish in the education system is this notion that just because a school gets better grades it should get more money. Really we should even out the schools and make sure that all of them are properly funded so there is never a case where supplies are low. Unfortunately, all public schools have funding issues.
The problem with inner city kids is that they are often exposed early to methods of living that we would consider detrimental to one's health. This is particularly true in Oakland. It's probably a combination of the social structure and family structure, but regardless there is little that a teacher can do to get rid of the sort of 'criminal thinking' that plagues places like Oakland. I think we do need to make a distinction on the notion of 'intelligence'. What exactly makes someone intelligent? If you can solve a complex math problem in 2 seconds? Well what about someone who can open the hood of a car that is having problems and know almost immediately what is wrong? Isaac Asimov was a genius, literally, a science fiction writer, and a renowned scientist. Yet even he could acknowledge that what is considered intelligent by society is only one preconceived notion of intelligence. He referred to what his auto mechanic could do as something beyond him, a man of high IQ and high academic standing, and that we simply don't understand the reality that people are intelligent in different ways.
All people are capable of learning a skill. Certainly not all people can learn the same skill. Some of us are scientifically minded, some of us are mechanically minded, some of us have some other kind of mind, but we all are given the opportunities to do something. Granted, some areas may have lower standards within the education system, but it is still there for you and there are options.
We in America have this obsession with 'I can't do it', when really you can. You can break out of poverty if you are willing to do the work. For some that means working your ass off, maybe working two jobs and going to college, or whatever. But you can still make it if you are willing to work for it. Not all people who become rich started out that way, and not all of them are geniuses. Some are just lucky, or worked really hard.
I think that line of thinking, though, is the biggest problem. They think they can't get out...but they can...they just give up too early. I've known people who are not geniuses. They couldn't get through college level math, but they could do other things and they worked hard to get where they are. Stephen King wasn't always successful. He spent part of his life living in a trailer home with only a typewriter and no power...and now, after never giving up and trying and trying, he's rich. Most people might not be able to pull that off, but they could do other things. Everyone has a skill, they just have to find out what it is.
I do understand what you are saying, but I think we need to train the belief that just because you're poor and live in a crappy area you won't ever amount to anything...
Although, I believe that inner city areas need to be policed and fixed, desperately...

I live right outside of Baltimore and that city is in terrible shape. The drug trade has destroyed urban areas.

The thing about everyone having a skill--it is possible for someone to not be good enough in particular any field and will have to spend the rest of his or her life working in a lowly position as a waiter/waitress, a garbage man, or a simple factory worker. There is dignity in those jobs and they are necessary, but the fact is not all people--whether through genetics, environment, or simple misfortune--don't have the means to become successful. America may lack class jealousy (instead of resenting the rich, they think they an become rich), but I seriously doubt some good, hardworking people really have a shot at "the pursuing of happiness (property)."

There will be. I imagine that Americans will get sick of the uneven, unfair election scheme.

Most Americans unfortunately are apathetic.

A corporation isn't a someone. It's an economic entity and not a person. So technically speaking it does not have the same rights as you or I. So, a corporation donating money to a candidate isn't like a person doing it. And what it is...is bribery, or a form of it. Corporations use money to get the votes they want. That's evil and wrong, not to mention unethical.

Sometimes its a wealthy person, not a corporation. When a person does it, it is political expression. Sometimes organizations (not corporations, per se) and shadow political parties are actually created to get the candidate more money, and those I wouldn't those are bribing the candidate, because they don't expect anything in return--except for the candidate to maintain his promises (the ones he made during his campaign).

But I agree with you to an extent about the corporations. I guess I could be contradicting myself. The thing about trying to limit how much money a candidate can spend--that's controlling the symptoms when you should attack the actual problem. Read about the Iron Triangle and the K-Street Project--even anti-corporate candidates have had to vote pro-corporation often times because they want financial backing and after they retire from politics they want to get jobs at lobbying firms. Somehow lobbying needs to be removed from the picture. The question is, is it possible?

I'm afraid the Declaration is far more important and influential in our country than you think. It's the foundation of everything we became. It was the start of everything, the document that defined the things we were pissed about and what things we had the right to do as people. If anything, it is the first declaration of our rights, even if such rights could be considered already existent. The Constitution wasn't even adopted until 1787 and while the Constitution certainly is a document of more importance as far as rights are concerned, the Declaration was deeply involved in the rule of natural law and the rights of all people.
I see what you are saying. The Declaration isn't like the Constitution in that the rights are all laid out in order, or offer very specific, defined rights, but it does offer the first rights that the United States adopted, which are rights that the signers believed were the rights of all people.

My main point is the Declaration only really talks about how King George III (technically the British government, but as a rhetorical technique focused on the King) violated the rights; it's a letter to the king, not really a document that is meant to give people rights. The Declaration of Independence really just restated part of Locke's philosophy and the rights British citizens believed they had because of the Magna Carta. I would say the Magna Carta and Locke's beliefs--from which that part of the Declaration of Independence is largely derived--had more of a profound effect on American Gov't.

The reason I would say that the Declaration isn't that important because it physically does not give any rights to people. It is just a statement that says: you, the King George III, violated our rights under current British law. It was a personal letter to the king, not a document that defined our system of government. The only specific right it lists (Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Property are vague), is the right to rebel against a despotic government.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787 only because the union of the states under the Articles of Confederation was imperfect and needed to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and whatever else is listed in the preamble.

Shaun

01-11-2008, 04:41 AM

The thing about everyone having a skill--it is possible for someone to not be good enough in particular any field and will have to spend the rest of his or her life working in a lowly position as a waiter/waitress, a garbage man, or a simple factory worker. There is dignity in those jobs and they are necessary, but the fact is not all people--whether through genetics, environment, or simple misfortune--don't have the means to become successful. America may lack class jealousy (instead of resenting the rich, they think they an become rich), but I seriously doubt some good, hardworking people really have a shot at "the pursuing of happiness (property)."

Oh goodness, I think we resent the rich very much. But not because they are rich, but because of what they do. I think all of us at the bottom rung thing we would act in a different manner than we see a lot of really rich folk do. Enron...yeah, 'nuff said.
Here's the problem with your example of lowly jobs. It wasn't that lnog ago when factory workers actually made decent money. But things are automated now, and so we don't need people who are trained to work in certain fields of factory production. I'm sure there is someone out there that just can't do anything that is available, though, but they are rare. Everyone is good at something and you can get paid for just about anything these days...next to prostitution in most states.
Being rich doesn't necessarily equate happiness though. Honestly, happiness to me would be living comfortably doing a job I love, married to a wonderful woman who also works a job she loves (or takes care of the house...her choice). If that means I can't buy a mansion once a year or a Ferrari, well, fine. I think the American dream nowadays is more or less being comfortable. Anyone has the chance to be rich, but we all know we probably won't be. But if we can reach that comfortable zone, we're set.
And I mentioned already that garbage men actually get paid a lot. California, unfortunately, screws people who work those 'lowly positions' you mentioned. Cost of living is ridiculous here. But in other states, like Washington for example, it's not that bad. Making the wage of a garbage man in Washington could easily put you in a comfortable living situation (well, assuming you're comfortable with garbage...).

Sometimes its a wealthy person, not a corporation. When a person does it, it is political expression. Sometimes organizations (not corporations, per se) and shadow political parties are actually created to get the candidate more money, and those I wouldn't those are bribing the candidate, because they don't expect anything in return--except for the candidate to maintain his promises (the ones he made during his campaign).

Ah, but when a really big corporation's CEO gives a big paycheck to a candidate, where is the line between personal expression and corporate expression? You see what I mean? If it were against the law for corporations to give money under the name of the corp., CEO's will just go around it. Corporations don't have the best interests of the rest of us in mind. They want the candidate that's going to make sure they stay filthy, sickeningly rich. Look at oil companies...record profits...over and over...
I think a better way of expressing is to just say "I support you". Send a letter, show up at rallies, and vote. Money might be expression to you, but money is a manipulating device and it has and will continue to sway elections in the wrong direction. We need fair elections with voting machines that work...

But I agree with you to an extent about the corporations. I guess I could be contradicting myself. The thing about trying to limit how much money a candidate can spend--that's controlling the symptoms when you should attack the actual problem. Read about the Iron Triangle and the K-Street Project--even anti-corporate candidates have had to vote pro-corporation often times because they want financial backing and after they retire from politics they want to get jobs at lobbying firms. Somehow lobbying needs to be removed from the picture. The question is, is it possible?

Maybe we could remove lobbying. We need a major change in our electoral process right now. The electoral college is a joke, and it's retarded...I don't know why we don't just have a big giant count of the entire population...theoretically you could get less votes than someone else, but if you win key states you'll still win the election, since some states are worth more than others. Removing the electoral college might force candidates to actually campaign across the country, or perhaps have better targeted campaigns.
I'm for limiting funding simply because I'm tired of unfair elections. I don't like it that only the filthy rich or people who can kiss the asses of the filthy rich can get power and representation...I'd like to see someone who might not be rich, but would still make a good candidate...

My main point is the Declaration only really talks about how King George III (technically the British government, but as a rhetorical technique focused on the King) violated the rights; it's a letter to the king, not really a document that is meant to give people rights. The Declaration of Independence really just restated part of Locke's philosophy and the rights British citizens believed they had because of the Magna Carta. I would say the Magna Carta and Locke's beliefs--from which that part of the Declaration of Independence is largely derived--had more of a profound effect on American Gov't.

Well certainly, but reasserting those rights is like saying "hey, we have these rights and we're making sure you know that we're taking them".

Again, it's not the same as the Constitution, but laid the foundation of the beliefs the U.S., at the time, was adopting...no matter how vague :P.

Rafael Domination

01-11-2008, 07:46 AM

Just butting in here...while the separation on Church and State is endorsed by my sect, I also believe a politician who operates on good morals won't hurt. Now only if we can find one of those...

Crocolyle

01-11-2008, 03:49 PM

Oh goodness, I think we resent the rich very much. But not because they are rich, but because of what they do. I think all of us at the bottom rung thing we would act in a different manner than we see a lot of really rich folk do. Enron...yeah, 'nuff said.
Here's the problem with your example of lowly jobs. It wasn't that lnog ago when factory workers actually made decent money. But things are automated now, and so we don't need people who are trained to work in certain fields of factory production. I'm sure there is someone out there that just can't do anything that is available, though, but they are rare. Everyone is good at something and you can get paid for just about anything these days...next to prostitution in most states.
Being rich doesn't necessarily equate happiness though. Honestly, happiness to me would be living comfortably doing a job I love, married to a wonderful woman who also works a job she loves (or takes care of the house...her choice). If that means I can't buy a mansion once a year or a Ferrari, well, fine. I think the American dream nowadays is more or less being comfortable. Anyone has the chance to be rich, but we all know we probably won't be. But if we can reach that comfortable zone, we're set.
And I mentioned already that garbage men actually get paid a lot. California, unfortunately, screws people who work those 'lowly positions' you mentioned. Cost of living is ridiculous here. But in other states, like Washington for example, it's not that bad. Making the wage of a garbage man in Washington could easily put you in a comfortable living situation (well, assuming you're comfortable with garbage...).

My point was not everyone is equal because not everyone has in them the makings of success, whether because their genes, environment, or whatever goes against them.

In Baltimore you used to be able to get good jobs at GMC and Bethlem steel, but those jobs were outsourced. There actually aren't many good factory jobs, come to think of it.

Literary by pursuit of happiness, TJ meant pursuit of property. He was virtually quoting Locke, but wanted to make it sound a little more eloquent. I think it may have actually said property in earlier drafts, but I'm not sure.

Ah, but when a really big corporation's CEO gives a big paycheck to a candidate, where is the line between personal expression and corporate expression? You see what I mean? If it were against the law for corporations to give money under the name of the corp., CEO's will just go around it. Corporations don't have the best interests of the rest of us in mind. They want the candidate that's going to make sure they stay filthy, sickeningly rich. Look at oil companies...record profits...over and over...
I think a better way of expressing is to just say "I support you". Send a letter, show up at rallies, and vote. Money might be expression to you, but money is a manipulating device and it has and will continue to sway elections in the wrong direction. We need fair elections with voting machines that work...
I understand what you're saying and while it makes sense to be against it, I feel that laws like McCain-Feingold are unconstitutional under the first amendment.

Maybe we could remove lobbying. We need a major change in our electoral process right now. The electoral college is a joke, and it's retarded...I don't know why we don't just have a big giant count of the entire population...theoretically you could get less votes than someone else, but if you win key states you'll still win the election, since some states are worth more than others. Removing the electoral college might force candidates to actually campaign across the country, or perhaps have better targeted campaigns.
I'm for limiting funding simply because I'm tired of unfair elections. I don't like it that only the filthy rich or people who can kiss the asses of the filthy rich can get power and representation...I'd like to see someone who might not be rich, but would still make a good candidate...

I'm not for removing the electoral college. Even though it means that Gore lost, it gives smaller states more of a say than they would have without the electoral college. We're more of a republic than a democracy.

Just butting in here...while the separation on Church and State is endorsed by my sect, I also believe a politician who operates on good morals won't hurt. Now only if we can find one of those...

I'm assuming Shaun--if I may speak for him--would disagree. So far from what he's said, he seems to support Pragmatism, where leaders serve as the voice of their constituency.

I think there needs to be a balance between the two.

Shaun

01-11-2008, 04:57 PM

My point was not everyone is equal because not everyone has in them the makings of success, whether because their genes, environment, or whatever goes against them.

Well, okay, I guess I see what you're saying. Certainly from a genetic standpoint some people aren't equal. Mentally handicapped people can't really survive in the same fashion as you or I because they lack certain mental functions. But we provide them the aid to survive, as we should.
As for environment, well that's partially true. There really are only a few places in America where environment would be a considerable issue (Alaska mainly). But the thing about America is that you can move anywhere in the country. There are no rules that say you can't go from Washington to New York. You just have to have the money. So if opportunities are slim in one place for you, you have the option to go elsewhere, and most anyone can work a couple minimum wage jobs to get the money to do that.
I think I was mostly concerned with what are 'normal' people. People that don't have genetic problems that prevent them from moving around like the rest of us. The overwhelming majority of Americans are this way. So, perhaps opportunities are different for people under different physical or mental conditions. But we often provide them the support they need to live, though it probably isn't enough.

In Baltimore you used to be able to get good jobs at GMC and Bethlem steel, but those jobs were outsourced. There actually aren't many good factory jobs, come to think of it.

No, there aren't. Part of that has to do with Bush's policy of offering tax cuts to companies that outsource, which to me is like pissing in the face of America. The logic of that tax cut makes no sense to me. Back in the day (40s and 50s and maybe the 60s) you could work a factory job and actually support a family with one person working.

Literary by pursuit of happiness, TJ meant pursuit of property. He was virtually quoting Locke, but wanted to make it sound a little more eloquent. I think it may have actually said property in earlier drafts, but I'm not sure.

But what is property? That's a vague term. Does it apply only to land? Does it apply to money? Is a job a property? We say "my job", so it would seem so. So whether they says 'happiness' or 'property' it boils down to much the same, at least in today's world.

I'm not for removing the electoral college. Even though it means that Gore lost, it gives smaller states more of a say than they would have without the electoral college. We're more of a republic than a democracy.

It doesn't give more say to any state. It gives more say to the people. We all have to live under federal law, so why are we making some states worth more than others when we can simply have the people vote? Other states can't vote for governors of neighboring states, even though that election could have an effect on them.
The electoral college is simply stupid. It devalues the individual vote by making certain states worth more than others. So if the majority wins a state for Democrats and that state doesn't have a distribution policy (i.e.: give 3 to Dems and 1 to Reps) then all the people who just voted republican pretty much are shit out of luck. This is part of the reason why so many people don't vote. Why bother voting republican in a state that almost always goes democrat? It's a waste of your time. The electoral college does this and it's retarded.

I'm assuming Shaun--if I may speak for him--would disagree. So far from what he's said, he seems to support Pragmatism, where leaders serve as the voice of their constituency.

I think there needs to be a balance between the two.

My argument is that one doesn't need religion to be a moral person. Though I do agree that politicians all need good morals, that doesn't mean they have to be religious. Some could be agnostic or atheist and still uphold the law. I think it's a misconception that those of us who don't go to Church or worship God are immoral heathens. We're not. We shun murder, rape, adultery, and the like just as you do. And we fail at our morals just as often as religious people do, sometimes less.