Troll alert

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
Algebe's picture
@mykcob4 "Even though the USA

@mykcob4 "Even though the USA never kept or transported nuclear weapons in Japan"

No. The US kept, transported, and serviced nuclear weapons in Okinawa before and after its reversion to Japan. That became clear when a secret 1969 agreement between Richard Nixon and the Japanese Prime Minister came to light, and from admissions by former US ambassador Edwin Reischauer. You could argue that the US nuclear presence was the only thing that kept the Soviets from invading, but it was nevertheless hypocrital and deceptive by both governments.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
How do you define a liberal,

How do you define a liberal, as opposed to a libertarian or conservative? Unless you can make a distinction, I don't think a rational or productive conversation is possible.

The difference, in my view, is that Liberals support maximum personal freedom, as well as safety nets. Whereas Libertarians support maximum personal freedom, and capitalism, but vigorously oppose any regulations or safety nets.

As for myself, I am a liberal- as I support basic worker and consumer safety regulations, a light progressive tax, replacing welfare and all our other social welfare measures with a simple, Negative Income Tax, a form of UBI, Education spending, a federal program allowing people to go to college via grants and a program enabling people to get health insurance who otherwise couldn't afford it. However, I believe the market should remain for the most part free, and support capitalism- I also want people to control their own retirement, and want healthcare, education, and higher education to be provided through the Free Market, though I support subsidies allowing people to afford these.

This I suppose makes me a Liberal who is leaning Libertarian.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
mykcob4's picture
It seems that we are close..

It seems that we are close...very close but yet there is a chasm. I believe in safety nets. I believe that certain things are rights, like education and health. I believe in a federal government and would do away with state governments. I believe in a FAIR market, not just a wide open unregulated free market.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
I support state sovereignty

I support state sovereignty though. If states were forced to compete for taxpayers, like businesses compete for customers, they would all try to offer us better qualities of living. Also the name of the country is the United States.

mykcob4's picture
I have to say that I disagree

I have to say that I disagree strongly on that point " If states were forced to compete for taxpayers, like businesses compete for customers, they would all try to offer us better qualities of living."
Here in Texas, they promote what they call a "business friendly environment." That means they have no state income tax. It also means that they don't protect customers of workers and are anti-union. It also means that they don't enforce pollution laws. That isn't a better quality of living.
Yes, the name is the United States, key word being UNITED!

GarfeildRepublican's picture
Yes, but that's because the

Yes, but that's because the people who live in Texas thought that those policies would benefit them- having many states alows for numerous groups of people to have their own way without fucking it up for everyone else. If the conservatives in Texas would rather have those policies, let them stay in their own state and fuck up their own lives.

The word state in the 1700's, and even today in most other countries, refers to a sovereign nation. That was originally the intention, for every state to be its own sovereign nation, and for the Federal Government to be an alliance of these states, as was the case under the Articles of confederation. That didn't work so in 1789 they wrote up a New Constitution giving the Federal Government a lot more power.

For the most part though, I believe that power should be decentralized-

Algebe's picture
@Garfeild Republican: "The

@Garfeild Republican: "The word state in the 1700's, and even today in most other countries, refers to a sovereign nation. "

Yes. One of the big differences between US states and sovereign states in the rest of the world is that you have freedom of movement. If you're unhappy with the way things are being run in Wyoming you can move to California or New Hampshire. That's a big issue in the rest of the world. Freedom of movement between nation states in Europe was one of the triggers for Brexit. The Brits were worried that too many people preferred Britain to Poland or Romania. Migrants are an easy target for populist politicians looking for scapegoats for their own failed policies.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
True, but there is a housing

True, but there is a housing crisis in Brittany, they don't have enough housing for the people who already live there, so thousands of refugees obviously is going to be problematic.

Algebe's picture
I think there's a housing

I think there's a housing affordability crisis in Britain, and that will get worse after Brexit because 100s of thousands of expat Brits will have to come home from Europe. But Britain has always had huge immigration, going back to the Hugeonot refugees. After WWII, there were huge inflows from former colonies. People got all upset then, too, and populist politicians fanned anti-migrant hatred. It's easy to portray migrants as a threat or a burden, but if immigration is orderly, migrants can help to generate demand and growth. I just wish they'd leave their idiotic religions and sectarian hatred at home.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
There are literally not

There are literally not enough houses

mykcob4's picture
@Algebe

@Algebe
You talk of freedom of movement as if it is easy or even practical. For most Americans, it is not I assure you. I know that you are actually talking about FREEDOM of movement and that is quite a different thing, but I thought I should point that out to you. One of the main problems with most common conservative ideas is that they seem to think that people have the opportunity to do the things that they say that they are FREE to do.
I am not accusing you of this or of even being a conservative. I am just pointing out the stark reality.

mykcob4's picture
I disagree. Even the founders

I disagree. Even the founders knew that 13 separate sovereignties would not and could not work, hence the commerce clause that goes far beyond what one would expect. The Fed is the supreme law of the land for a reason. I don't believe in decentralizing governing. I believe in uniform governing. We fought the civil war and states rights lost.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
That's why they replaced the

That's why they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution- but they strongly opposed abolishing state government. The founders were strong proponents of the decentralization of power, that's why they established 3 branches of government.

mykcob4's picture
@ Garfield

@ Garfield
You talk as if the founders were bent on decentralizing the Federal government in favor of more power distributed to the states. That was not the case. Checks and balances are not an effort to decentralize government. Those powers STILL and ALWAYS reside in the FED.
True there was a faction that thought each state should act like a separate nation and hold a loose confederation with the Federal government for the sole purpose of national defense. That is exactly what the Civil War was fought over and the confederates LOST. If you TRULY are a Lincolnian, a Grafeildian, Rooseveltian, then you would NOT hold a states rights position.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
There is a difference-

There is a difference- Lincoln never wanted to abolish the State governments, I am only arguing from a states rights view in the effort of arguing against that. Lincoln believed in a UNITED States, but that in no way means he wanted to abolish the State Governments, and he would likely oppose such a measure.

mykcob4's picture
@Garfeild

@Garfeild
We obviously disagree on the point of states rights. I contend that states don't have rights and only have authority granted them by default by the Fed. Which is exactly how the Constitution reads.
I don't agree with what is called a free capitalist system. I believe in a free and FAIR well-regulated capitalist system.
I think rights are INDIVIDUAL and that corporations are NOT individuals.
Who's to say if Lincoln would oppose such a measure. He upheld the Union and abolished slavery a right contended for by the states. Lincoln was a Unionist and therefore a Federalist.
The Constitution was explained by the Federalist papers and it is called that for a reason.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
It does read like that, but

It does read like that, but keep in mind, under the original constitution, the State governments would appoint the senators. That was before they passed the 17th Amendment. I agree that we need a strong Federal Government, as the founders intended, and that we should be unified, as Lincoln intended, but I disagree with abolishing State Governments, and believe that the states should have some rights, ugh ultimately the power should be vested in the Federal Government.

I agree that we need logical worker and consumer safety regulations- free just means that people aren't inhibited from trading amongst themselves. Regulations to protect workers and consumers do not inhibit freedom.

Lincoln would oppose abolishing the states- he wanted to keep the states unified as a nation, but abolishing them is bad for many reasons.

Also like Lincoln, and William Jennings Bryan, I believe that the power to coin money should be in the hands of congress, as the Constitution says.

mykcob4's picture
I really like they way you

I really like they way you think Garfield. I really do. You are not quick to react but rather THINK, which I can and do appreciate. Now we are still apart in some areas, but the truth is that I am farther from the center than any moderate. Of course, states cannot and were never intended to be abolished. that is just an idea I have for uniform and equal justice.
The problem with Free capitalism is what the meaning has become, NOT the original intention. That is why I stress fair enterprise.
The part of William Jennings Bryant scares me. Although a brilliant legal mind, he was also a radical evangelical and worked hard to impose his brand of christianity into the government. Remember the Scopes trial?

GarfeildRepublican's picture
"The problem with Free

"The problem with Free capitalism is what the meaning has become, NOT the original intention. That is why I stress fair enterprise."

Exactly! Have you read the Wealth of Nations? I guarantee you Adam Smith would not approve of our current system. It was never intended to be this way.

"The part of William Jennings Bryant scares me. Although a brilliant legal mind, he was also a radical evangelical and worked hard to impose his brand of christianity into the government. Remember the Scopes trial?"

That is true- but Lincoln was a hard core Christian as well, and referenced God repeatedly in his Gettysburg Address. This is because just about everyone then was crazy religious. Either way I was referring to his support of money being controlled by congress-

mykcob4's picture
@Grafeild

@Grafeild
Again I am pleasantly surprised by your understanding of history. Bryant was NUTS when it came to religion. He would use revisionist history to justify his political standing. Yes Lincoln was a devout christian as were almost everyone at the time. That is why we have thanksgiving as a holiday as well as many government sanctioned religious incursions and encroachments institutionalized into the government.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
Do you support Congress

Do you support Congress issued money though? The old United States Notes?

mykcob4's picture
I really don't understand

I really don't understand your question or even your motivation for asking it.
Are you embarking on discussing Article I Section 10 of the Constitution?
The Fed issues money and the Treasury mints the money the Fed authorizes. Congress doesn't issue money.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
No, Article 1 Section 8,

No, Article 1 Section 8, which says:
"The congress shall have the power... to coin money, regulate the value thereof."

And makes no mention of a Federal Reserve.

mykcob4's picture
Ah...my favorite Article of

Ah...my favorite Article of the Constitution.
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I especially like this part, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" Conservatives always forget that we are not by constitutional law allowed to have a standing Army.
The Congress is authorized to coin money so it is fine by me. You would have to get an Amendment to pass to overturn that authority. I doubt that there will ever be a 28th Amendment!

BTW Garfeild, how old are you?

GarfeildRepublican's picture
It is unconstitutional to

It is unconstitutional to have a standing army- but things have changed since the constitution, now we have immediate threats that could attack at any moment. I also find it ironic that someone who was part of our standing army is admitting that it is unconstitutional. Anyway, Eisenhower talked in length about the dangers of a Military Industrial Complex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU

I'm 25

mykcob4's picture
1) I wasn't in the Army. I am

1) I wasn't in the Army. I am a retired USMC or as what we Marines say, an inactive Marine.
2) I was just pointing out how parts of the Constitution cannot be taken literally. Conservatives and Libertarians like to cherry pick the Constitution and take it literally.
3) There are other parts of the Article that I like that conservatives like to ignore, like "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" and " general Welfare of the United States;".
4) As for Eisenhower's speech. That is the only thing that he did besides continuing the Democrat's idea about the Interstate highway system.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
1. Yes, but the Marines count

1. Yes, but the Marines count as infantry right?
3. Funding toward science and granting patents that is
4. That's not true, he passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to little rock.

mykcob4's picture
No infantry is just part of

No infantry is just part of several fighting branches. The USMC is NOT the Army. The USMC has a fixed wing and a rotor wing an infantry, an artillery, special services, a supply, a recon, and many more departments. Hence the Marines are the first to fight on land sea and air.
1) The Civil Rights Act was started by Kennedy and signed into law By Johnson in 1964.
2) Eisenhower never sent troops to Arkansas or anywhere domestically.
3) Eisenhower signed a voting rights bill in 1957.
4) In 1954 Eisenhower sent the National Guard not official the military which would be unconstitutional. I guess you can call them troops.

GarfeildRepublican's picture
OK, that makes sense.

OK, that makes sense.

I knew Eisenhower never sent military personnel to little rock, I just called them troops. Wouldnt that be the Third Amendment? That prohibits military from occupying land in peace times.

Nyarlathotep's picture
There is nothing

GarfeildRepublican - It is unconstitutional to have a standing army

That is false. There is nothing unconstitutional about having a standing army. The Constitutional just puts limits on how it is paid for.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.