Originally Posted by dillywho

I may be wrong, but I don't think that honest debate and differing opinions is the problem. It is the ones that feel the need for name-calling and disrespectful attitudes toward those that don't agree with them that drives posters away. I have my opinions, you have yours, and others have theirs and I respect all of them whether I agree or not. That is what this great country is about...freedom and respect for one another. Please don't go away.

Totally agree. We all learn more through the honest exchange of knowledge, experience, and ideas.

Originally Posted by pfiliat

The facts that I included in my post were from the UK government web site. For some reason, when I tried to include the link within my post, it was being flagged for SPAM. If I deleted it, it worked.

I had assumed you meant income tax rates, which at 60 %, I had found excessive, prompting me to check. Upon re-reading your post, you did not specify income tax rates. Would you then be kind enough to specify what taxation rate you were referring to, and what is the source of that figure ?

I felt that your numbers were a little lite It did not consider such taxes as Capital gains 18%, Inheritance, 40%,VAT 15%, National insurance 11% Like America, there are many more.

Yoda

I rarely venture into the political forum because I don't have the guts to listen to fighting. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that wasn't the case in this thread. Although many of you disagree, you did it for the most part in a civil manner with well thought out posts. I learned a great deal and have great respect for what you had to say.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I am not going to comment on your first two points, as I am not sure what point you are trying to make with them !!

!

My point goes to the 2nd post of this thread, where words of the Constitution were used to make a point about the direction the country seems to be heading in now. I interpreted that point to be that what is happening now runs counter to the original intentions of those men who wrote the Constitution.

My point is that may be true, but while the Constitution is an amazing start to a new government, not every ideal that those men brought to bear in that document holds up in today's world. Examples being support of slavery, and denial of rights we take for granted to women, blacks, and native americans, among others.

Does that clarify my point?

Originally Posted by Bucco

On your third point.......first, if you get a refund on Iraq (I assume from your previous posts that is what you were referring to) then I want one for a few wars I didnt agree with either...wouldnt that be some world, where our ELECTED REPS in congress vote for a war....we dont like it....especially in HINDSIGHT after we know what happens...and thus we get a refund !!!!

I wasn't actually submitting that this idea would work. My comment was in response to someone who suggested they should get their money back from Social Security because they would prefer not to be in the system.

Wait just a minute here.

My point is that may be true, but while the Constitution is an amazing start to a new government, not every ideal that those men brought to bear in that document holds up in today's world. Examples being support of slavery, and denial of rights we take for granted to women, blacks, and native americans, among others.

Where does the Constitution support slavery? Your view of this country and it's founding principles are very warped to me. Have you even read the Constitution?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Socialism, I think, is defined as a poltical system where the federal government is owning most, if not all, of the corporations and where the citizens rely mostly on the federal government for thier needs.

Based on that definition, can we assume that you are an advocate of that type of government ?

You've hit a nail right on the head here IMHO. I think Socialism has a few different interpretations, all varying in relative degree. Your definition is as valid as any. In some writing your definition of Socialism is referred to as Communism. In other writing, Socialism is referred to as a state somewhere in between your Communism and totally unbridled, Darwinistic Captialism.

to answer your direct question, no, based on your definition I am not an advocate of that type of government.

Based on the definition that Socialism is a state of government whereby the small guy is afforded some protection from the super powerful grip of those that have amassed capitalistic clout, yes I'd advocate that society over one where the more one has, the more power one has to exploit those beneath.

My point is that we live in some nether world between unbridled Capitalism (that system was bridled, for example, with anti-trust laws that didn't allow John D. Rockefeller to charge whatever he wanted for his oil, even though it was HIS OIL), with some government mandated social programs, examples being Social Security, Medicaid, Medicaire.

Given my definition of Capitalism, where the government exerts no control on corporations, regardless of how vital the goods they sell are to the function of society, where the market is king, and if the small suffer, well, it's just not our job to intervene, would you be an advocate of living in that society?

The poison, as they say, is in the dose.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Wait just a minute here.



Where does the Constitution support slavery? Your view of this country and it's founding principles are very warped to me. Have you even read the Constitution?

Article1, Section 9

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

This was how they chose to deal with the problem of slavery. Many of the contributors found slavery abhorrent, but many were southerners, and many owned slaves themselves, notably among them Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. They dealt with it in this way because they knew they'd never get the deal done if they tied the question of slavery to the acceptance of the Constitution.

Article 4, sect 2.

"(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)"

this made it illegal to assist a fugitive slave. Hence it was superseded by the 13th Amendment which as we both know, since
WE BOTH
have read the Constitution, Abolished Slavery.

Thank you for finally including the last two words. Yes it was abolished via an amendment to the Constitution. Yes some of the signers were slave owners. So in light of that, let's turn a blind eye when our previous and current administration side steps it at every turn.

I guess that's were the polarization comes from. Some still believe in the Constitution and where our rights originate, and some believe it's an old document no longer relevant to current society. That would be Obama and yes previous administrations as well.

Apparently these days our rights come from government and not our creator.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Thank you for finally including the last two words. Yes it was abolished via an amendment to the Constitution. Yes some of the signers were slave owners. So in light of that, let's turn a blind eye when our previous and current administration side steps it at every turn.

I guess that's were the polarization comes from. Some still believe in the Constitution and where our rights originate, and some believe it's an old document no longer relevant to current society. That would be Obama and yes previous administrations as well.

Apparently these days our rights come from government and not our creator.

I should correct you on an earlier post when you asked "where does the Constitution support slavery?" I had never said it did, the point I had made was that in its original form, it did. Through change, through Amendment, slavery was abolished.

So, my point is, that while it's a great Constitution, change can occur. And sometimes change is good. Not always, but sometimes.

I agree with your right to believe, and proclaim loudly, that the direction we are heading is to a more socialist view, and that you think that's a bad thing.

The points I've tried to make is that it is wrong to label those who voted in the Dems as "Kool-Aid" Drinkers, or just those looking for hand-outs from the government.
It is also wrong to point a finger at the Constitution and say that document prohibits social welfare, or changes from its original form that would facilitate social change. And furthermore, that its original form had stuff in it that really needed to be changed, and was changed, eventually.

Originally Posted by Laker14

I should correct you on an earlier post when you asked "where does the Constitution support slavery?" I had never said it did, the point I had made was that in its original form, it did. Through change, through Amendment, slavery was abolished.

So, my point is, that while it's a great Constitution, change can occur. And sometimes change is good. Not always, but sometimes.

I agree with your right to believe, and proclaim loudly, that the direction we are heading is to a more socialist view, and that you think that's a bad thing.

The points I've tried to make is that it is wrong to label those who voted in the Dems as "Kool-Aid" Drinkers, or just those looking for hand-outs from the government.
It is also wrong to point a finger at the Constitution and say that document prohibits social welfare, or changes from its original form that would facilitate social change. And furthermore, that its original form had stuff in it that really needed to be changed, and was changed, eventually.

However, Constitutional "Change" is not something accomplished by the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch through creative interpretation. The Constitutional Amendment process is solely Legislative and is no easy matter - for darned good reason.

We've already had one painful lesson (the 18th and 21st Amendments) in trying to legislate social change via Constitutional Amendments. Hopefully we've learned from that experience. What may be the "modern" thought can also be simply something in vogue for a very short time, and destined to fall by the wayside for the next "modern" thought.

If one wants to change the Constitution, the process is in place to do so. When one wants to bypass that process through obviously illegal and unconstitutional actions, then hopefully the roof will fall in on the fool.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

However, Constitutional "Change" is not something accomplished by the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch through creative interpretation. The Constitutional Amendment process is solely Legislative and is no easy matter - for darned good reason.

We've already had one painful lesson (the 18th and 21st Amendments) in trying to legislate social change via Constitutional Amendments. Hopefully we've learned from that experience. What may be the "modern" thought can also be simply something in vogue for a very short time, and destined to fall by the wayside for the next "modern" thought.

If one wants to change the Constitution, the process is in place to do so. When one wants to bypass that process through obviously illegal and unconstitutional actions, then hopefully the roof will fall in on the fool.

I absolutely agree.