Back to basics

[Luke]

It is becoming more evident every day that we are headed for big time trouble. Democrats, Republicans, the Senate, the House, all three branches of the government seem more concerned with placing blame than solving the problems we face, so.....

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Maybe it is time to get back to how it all started. Bad things are headed our way. While I may not agree with everyone here, I wish the best of luck to all on this board.

God Bless the United States of America!

[Ryan Ruck]

I'll be honest... I've been thinking more and more that this nation is right in the middle of an unacknowledged "Cold Civil War" that is quickly getting hotter.

There are tensions among a number of groups. I think I've identified the major groups as:

• The Conservative Right - Those that believe in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' ideals and want to see our country get back on track and retain its top place in the world.
• The hard Left - Those that would like to see a real Socialist/Communist/Marxist/etc. government replace our (supposed) Representative Republic and, see the US laid weak and at the mercy of the rest of the world.
• Illegal aliens - That largely feel they are entitled to overrun our nation because "we stole it from them and they want it back".
• Blacks - Not all, just those that are criminal, perpetual victims, and/or militantly racist against whites. The kind that would vote for Obama simply because of his skin color or pay the likes of Sharpton or Jackson any attention.
• The authoritarian government - Those that want to be in a position of absolute power. This is largely comprised of the hard left but not completely. The rest are those who want power simply for the sake of it and the prestige be they Republican or Democrat.

Right now it seems like the nation is a powder keg. You have the hard left committing criminal acts against the right such as at the RNC. You have illegal aliens staging mass protests claiming they are going to oust us from "their" territory in the US. You have criminal and militant blacks that look for any opportunity to loot or riot because they are chronic victims. You have the authoritarian government constantly seeking to remove our freedoms by burying us under mounds of laws, regulations, and red tape. All of those sparks flying back and forth...

I think that eventually one of those sparks is going to set this powder keg off. What it will be, I don't know for sure.

These are seeds of destruction that have been planted by the external leftist forces known as the Trans-Asian Axis with the hopes of it weakening us to where we can easily be neutralized.

This is just the feeling I get. Hopefully when all is said and done the right group, the Conservative Right, are able to right this ship and keep us from being fatally weakened either internally or externally.

[American Patriot]

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

Just checkin'



I agree completely with both of you. We've been watching the world around us fall apart. We've got a Congress that is deeply divided - because, America itself is deeply divided.

This bail-out crap is Socialism. Pure and simple. If you don't believe it, looks who is pushing it - the Democrats (and Bush for some reason!)

This is America. Companies fail and when they fail, they should fail normally, not be held up by the strong American dollar which will be severely weakened (and in fact WAS just by TALK about this). By doing this "bailout" we might be saving a company and some investments, but we're also saving the jobs of multimillionaires who really can fend for themselves, they have these cool severance packages that give them millions (Gosh I wish I'd gotten in on that sort of thing...)

And giving the government control of these companies is indeed, Socialism -- technically the first steps in COMMUNISM.

Do I think the ship will be "righted" by the Right? No, I think the Left will keep us as capsized as possible and they aren't helping to "bail", but rather they are drilling holes in the hull.

We're in trouble - but the trouble we're actually in IS ALL RELATIVE. The more badly we talk about it, the worse it sounds. It will eventually right itself but it's not going to take a trillion dollars to do it.

It's going to take "talking UP" the good points of the economy. Period.

Again, it's all "relative".

The Russians closed their market and to my knowledge haven't reopened it. They are being PUNISHED for their Georgia incursion - by investors who believe them wrong in their attack on that small country. In other words, everyone sold stocks or pulled out. That's what Rice meant when she said "Russia will suffer the consequences". It has happened.

Now, we just need to MOVE on.

[Beetle]

HEAR HEAR RICK!!

It is Socialism and the deal is they provided a lot of subprime loans, interest rates went up and so did gas then the housing market bubble popped.

The Black Caucus stood in the way of Regulators when the Regulators tried to put the smack down on it. Regulators and others who tried to stop giving out so many subprimes loans were called everything including racist. I think it was Lacy Clay who said it was a political lynching of Frank Raines. One of the black Caucus members said that anyhow.

Now, Barrack Obozo is walking around sayiinng it is the fault of failed Bush economic policies and a greeedy Wall Street. Obozo and friends are behind this. And I believe that if Congess would have passed that bill last week, we would have handed the same people who caused the problem almost one trillion dollars; without removing the people respsonsible, without enforcing new regulations with oversite. It appears to be one bold move by the commie scum bag. Not to mention they wanted to give Acorn a couple billion dollars too.

That is the way I see it anyhow.

[Backstop]

Bad things are headed our way.

Yep.

And I agree with all the above posted comments.

And to add fuel to the fire, our government is gonna bail out some elements of the auto industry.

Just glad I could help (financially with my taxes)...

[wallis]

Ryan, point of order, please.

You wrote: "These are seeds of destruction that have been planted by the external leftist forces known as the Trans-Asian Axis with the hopes of it weakening us to where we can easily be neutralized."

Are you referring to this forum (Trans-Asian Axis) as being leftist, or are you referring to a supposed coalition of Asian agencies exerting an attack on the U.S.?

Also, I believe some definition needs to be given to the meaning of Conservative Right. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing there seems to be no cut-and-dry of the a definition.

"By some standards, both major parties lean to the right. Unlike left-wing parties in Europe, the American "left-wing" Democratic Party has never leaned to socialism. Indeed, it was founded on principles of free markets.
However, Americans still use terms "right" and "left". In the United States. In America, the right has long been associated with minimal government and sometimes with law and order. It tends to support individualist human rights, free markets, and property rights. It tends to emphasize economic freedom while progressives tend to emphasize social justice."

"Although the "right wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality; researchers found that it correlated with political conservatism. In a similar line of research, Philip Tetlock found that right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions."

"There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon."

"As new social issues arose, right wing views continued to be concerned with keeping "traditional" values (often religious values), which has more recently been expressed, for example, as emphasis on the preservation of individual and corporate rights through constraints on government power. The values and policy concerns of the right vary in different countries and eras. Also, individual right wing politicians and thinkers often have individual priorities. There are no universally accepted objective criteria to determine which of two sets of beliefs or policies is more right-wing."

"Strands of right wing thought come in many forms, and individuals who support some of the objectives of one of the above stands will not necessarily support all of the others. At the practical political policy level there are endless variations in the means that right wing thinkers advocate to achieve their basic aims."

"The right leans to decentralized society based on economic freedom and civil liberties; opposing centralized political control over people's lives and the economy.^[9] Like left-wing, right-wing movements include both with culturally liberal and conservative movements, making economic policies a more universal difference between the left and the right. The right advocates separation of powers, whereas the left advocates consolidated powers."

"In recent times, the right is almost universally associated with economic freedom."

"The most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advances policies such as property rights, free markets, and free trade. The left advocates equal outcome and ideologies such as socialism or communism ranging from radical to moderate."

[wallis]

To further complicate the issue (not intentionally, as this is an exercise in trying to get my arms around the issue), this site poses a pyschological approach to defining conservativism: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...politics.shtml

"Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?"

"[S]ome of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management"

"The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo . . . ."

"Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way . . . ."

"While most people resist change, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do."

"As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position."

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes . . . ."

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability."


"The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism. "
"Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system."

"Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions . . . 'They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm.'"

[wallis]

Luke: the following is in no way an attack, so please do not feel offended.

But, if we were to go "back to the way things were," then:

1. Only gentry people would be able to hold property.

2. Only people who own property would be able to vote.

3. Women, obviously, would lose the right to vote.

4. The Presidency would be "elected" by Congress, and the runner-up would become the Vice-President. [I have often wondered what it would be like in modern days for the President and the VP to be of opposing parties. I really don't think the world situation has changed all that much: except that events and reactions thereto happen a heck of a lot faster.]

5. A return to isolationism.

On the other hand, here are "wise words" from our founding fathers:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)

America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. – James Madison

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. – James Madison

When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. – Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson

When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. – Thomas Paine

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. – Thomas Jefferson

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but a swindling futurity on a large scale. – Thomas Jefferson

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood, if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be like tomorrow. – James Madison, Federalist Paper #62

If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its Republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. – Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. –Benjamin Franklin

Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world? – Thomas Paine

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. .I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. – President Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon an article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington

[wallis]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._18001850.html

For most citizens, their view of the American identity is bound together with God, purpose, and ethics. Even when the ugly face of truth rises to stare them in the face, most Americans refuse to admit that their country doesn’t exist at least in part for some kind of high moral purpose and instead choose to view these bursts of immorality as anomalies. The US was founded upon a revolutionary zeal that sprang in part—though certainly not to the extent that most people believe—from a moral imperative, but it really wasn’t until those revolutionary growing pains were excised in the early part of the 19th century that Americans felt confident enough to turn their attention to the fixing the sins that were felt to have corrupted European societies.

Once the idea of the United States had sufficiently evolved into the country of the United States and the expansion westward to realize the concept of manifest destiny had begun, it was time for Americans to turn inward and decide what kind of country this great experiment was to become. The first European settlers had come to establish religious freedom—for themselves more than for all, of course—but the revolutionary ideal displaced much of the energy that had gone toward that; time and effort that had been spent in worship had by necessity been superseded by the need to create and expand a country. Once accomplished, Americans could return their attention to more spiritual matters, aided greatly by an evangelical revival that cropped up in every region of the country, though in different forms and styles.

Several obstacles stood in front of those who took up the mantle of turning America into a beacon of morality in the world. Two specific objects of scorn became the centerpiece of the movements to reintroduce spiritualism into what had become a decidedly secular nation following the Revolution. That secularism had created what many viewed as an increasingly corrupt and even dissolute society; those inspired by the evangelicals put forth the call for a Protestant ethos that looked unkindly toward idle behavior and indulgence of any sort. In addition, the rise of the ideals of Jacksonian democracy emphasized an increasingly public awareness of their political responsibilities. These two forces combined to give birth to the temperance movement.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...es.html?cat=37

At no other time in the 200-year history of the United States has there been a greater opportunity for people to be involved in the evolution of democracy. Political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty are all fundamental components of democracy that have grown tremendously since the time of the nation’s Founding Fathers. Consequently, the United States has evolved and grown much more democratic in the process.

Representative democracy, in which the people rule through elected representatives, can be just as egalitarian as a direct democracy if it maintains the benchmarks of political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty. Although political equality is inherent to American democracy, the nation’s understanding of who is entitled to equal status has changed greatly over the years. At its conception, the Constitution deferred voting rights to the individual states. Most states limited equal citizenship to white male landowners. A few states even excluded white males with certain religious beliefs. Property ownership and religious requirements for white males ended in most states by 1829 (Greenberg & Page p.274).

Political liberty, another essential ingredient of democracy refers to the basic freedoms guaranteed to every citizen of the United States. These liberties include the freedoms of speech, of conscience and religion, of the press, and of assembly and association, embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Greenberg & Page p.11). Political equality and popular sovereignty are both contingent upon these important personal liberties. People must feel free to argue and debate, based on their own ideas, values, and personal beliefs without fear that the government will silence unpopular viewpoints. It is interesting to note that while Americans place great value on their own personal rights, they also frequently attack minority rights by way of the police, politicians, or the popular majority.

Popular sovereignty, the final element in a competent democracy involves a responsive government, an active electorate, access to high-quality information and debate, and a doctrine of majority rule. The basic principle of popular sovereignty states that the source of all public authority is the people and that government must follow the wishes of the people (Greenberg & Page p.8). Although the framers of the Constitution believed popular sovereignty was an essential part of democracy, they were often divided on how much control the public should have. Many Founding Fathers of the United States were concerned that government would become too democratic, being controlled by passing fads and irrational beliefs of an “immoderate and unvirtuous” people. This negative view of the public was not universal among delegates, but many believed that government office should be left to the “better parts of society.” The conduct of the public business was, in their view, the province of individuals with wisdom and experience, capacities associated mainly with people of social standing, substantial financial resources, and high levels of education. Not surprisingly, nearly all framers were part of this elite group (Greenberg & Page p.32-33).

Over time, opinion surveys and polls have shown that many of the Founders’ fears of radical fluctuations in public opinion are unfounded. In fact, collective public opinion is quite stable on the majority of issues.

The office of president is more democratic than it ever has been or was ever intended to be by the nation’s Founders.

As early as 1800, many states began allowing the popular vote to determine representatives in the Electoral College rather than the state legislatures. Although the system of electors is still odd and cumbersome, it ensures that American citizens choose their president more or less directly. A more democratic election process for the presidency continued to take shape as political parties began to allow voters to elect convention delegates directly, in primaries, instead of having party activists choose them through state caucuses or conventions (Greenberg & Page p.267-277).

Public participation in congressional races has also been increased since 1913 when election of U.S. senators was turned over to a popular vote. Before this time, senators were elected by state legislatures. This was another measure by the Founding Fathers to insulate government from the will of the public.

Although more people now have greater access to information, certain barriers to democracy still exist. Again, democracy in the United States remains a work in progress, an evolving system rather than a completed goal. The current problem with American democracy does not seem to be lack of opportunity, but rather that few citizens have the time, money, or energy to actively pursue democracy.

[T]he United States is still much more democratic than it ever has been at any time in its history. As the United States changes in the coming decades, it will be interesting to see how American citizens and the government upholds the democratic pillars of political equality, political liberty, and popular sovereignty. Expanding global economies, environmental concerns, and the threat of terrorism will all have a tremendous impact on the United States in the near future, but if the trend continues the nation will adjust and evolve to produce an even greater democracy.

[wallis]

http://http://lighthousepatriotjourn...establishment/

As you can see great debates and great changes occurred during the period from 1770s to 1830s. The government transformed, but so did the American society. At best, this period can be described as the upward climb to become the industrial nation and world leader, even as the Civil War approached. After the 1830s, the political parties began to shape itself and form a part of the instituted government and its legal system. The Republicans chose their political leader to be Thomas Jefferson, and during the summer of 1800 a political campaign ensued. It did not resemble even closely the type of campaigning that would evolve later in American history, but nevertheless a presidential campaign. In Randolph, III, pp. 444-446, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on August 13^th, 1800 proclaimed his political position and acceptance to be considered as the third President of the United States …

I received with great pleasure your favor of June 4, and am much comforted by the appearance of a change of opinion in your state; for though we may obtain, and I believe shall obtain, and I believe shall obtain, a majority in the legislation of the United States, attached to the preservation of the federal Constitution, according to its obvious principles and those on which it was known to be received, attached equally to the preservation to the states of those rights unquestionably remaining with them; friends to the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trail by jury, and to economical government; opposed to standing armies, paper systems, war, and all connection, other than commerce, with any foreign nation; in short, a majority firm in all those principles which we have espoused, and the Federalists have opposed uniformly, still, should the whole body of New England continue to opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. …
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. …
You have seen the practices by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government!
The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one – a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.

Thomas Jefferson promoted a simple, inexpensive government, yet efficient. Upon Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration on March 4^th, 1801, the city of Washington in the District of Columbia had been built and he was the first president to reside there. He delivered his Inaugural Address in the Senate chamber, which was the only part of the Capitol that had been completed. Along with the Senators there was a portion of federal judges and members of the House of Representatives – as much as the chamber could accommodate. Next to President Jefferson stood his Vice President, Aaron Burr and on his other side stood Chief Justice Marshall, who was a political enemy of Jefferson, appointed by his predecessor.

Thomas Jefferson had spent eight years before the day of his Inauguration in opposition to the Federalists and now was the head of the new Republican administration. His speech reflected that he wanted unification and not political division in handling governmental affairs. He hoped to unite the Federalist and the Republic political faction. In his address, he stated which you will probably never hear from today’s elected officials …

I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.

In the beginning of the nation, corruption was an identifier of the old regime of British rule, but now with the increase of the number of offices and the size of government, so did the elements of corruption.[xiii] The Jackson administration showed a new element of corruption that became known as the “spoils system”. It consisted of distributed payoffs within the democratic political entity. The previous republican system of the virtuous leaders that formed the new government and safeguarded it for the people, were now relying on the wisdom and the power of the vote by the people. The old school, well-educated politicians found the whole affair “distasteful”. Indeed it represented the less admirable qualities of American public life. Politics began to form the use of hyperbole and demagoguery. But along with this came the public stimulating election parades, barbecues, and town-hall meetings that became part of the social atmosphere. But the American public were involved, whether ethically or in corruption. Candidates began to receive nicknames: Old Hickory, Old Tippecanoe, Old Rough and Ready, and so on. This seemed make the political candidates more human and down to their social level. Towns and counties were being named after those that formed the nation and the events that took place in its formation – Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Independence, Hope, Freedom, Harmony, et cetera.
Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came to visit America in the early 1830s found a political system that was now run by professional politicians, instead of self-made, planter, farmer, lawyer statesmen that made up the Founders. Tocqueville would write from the prospective of a European visitor about the aspects of political and social life in America – which fascinated him. He writes later:

To take a hand in the regulation of society and to discuss it is the American’s biggest concern and, so to speak, the only pleasure an American knows.

Americans didn’t just discuss politics; it was part of social culture during this period. Today, many people don’t even want to discuss it and if they do it is limited, it seems at times because of their limited knowledge. You would think they would be interested in something that concerns their everyday lives. It concerns them because the people in Washington who were elected are legislating constantly – sometimes legislating your liberties away as often and as quickly as possible. Sometimes it is done with the foundation of a good purpose, but never looking at the long term. They only know that legislation in certain aspects will make the special interest groups or a certain ethnic group happy and thus ensure that they remain in office.


Andrew Jackson’s 1832 reelection marked the period when he removed federal deposits from the Bank of the United States and he vetoed a congressional attempt to re-charter the Bank. Jackson viewed the Bank issue as a social problem:

A showdown between “the rich and powerful” and “the farmers, mechanics, and laborers”.

He stated that he withdrew federal deposits from the Bank in order

…to preserve the morals of the people, the freedom of the press, and the purity of the elective franchise.[xix]

The Whigs called the action against the Bank of the United States an example of

Democratic hostility to development of Jacksonian autocracy, rapidly tending towards a total change of the pure and republican character of the government and the concentration of all power in the hands of one man.” [xx]

The new-party mentality of the popular culture had emerged, and it remain so until the Civil War era, and yet would continue for at least a hundred years.

The gist of this democratic politic movement by the practice, as aforementioned, coined as the “party-run spoils system”. Morton Keller writes in Chapter Five:

The party-democratic regime not only created a new politics but transformed government and law. The republican approach to governing in the early Republic assumed that elite rules would disinterestedly serve the public interest. In the news regime, “the democratic ideal of popular self-rule was translated into a reality of party government through the medium of yet a third concept – that of the rule of the majority.

[Aplomb]

Ooooh, I want to play, too. I want to better understand "liberals"...searching for a good source... a psychiatrist explains it all for a price, but no charge for the conclusion:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=56494

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily



WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]psychiatrist[/COLOR][/COLOR] is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]mental [COLOR=blue ! important]disorder[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].


"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]cradle[/COLOR][/COLOR] to grave."


While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."


For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]psychiatric[/COLOR][/COLOR] training at the University of Chicago.


Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]presidential[/COLOR][/COLOR] nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.


"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."


Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

[Luke]

Hey Wallis, no offense taken. In fact I agree with all but point 3 of your statement, that being women being able to vote.

As for only propery owners being able to vote, I see it as whoever pays taxes should have a say in elections.

I don't see isolationism as a bad thing.

2nd place VP would help with partisan politics.

The times have changed such that all property owners could be considered a "gentry class" Are members of the Senate and Congress not considered "gentleman"

I also enjoyed and thank you for the quotes from the founding fathers. Those fellows seem to be so much more intelligent than myself. I always am fascinated by words of wisdom.

Finally, we are not a democracy, rather a Republic. Perhaps our best hope for the future is in electing better leadership.

[Malsua]

The thing that really irritates me is that those who created this problem, groups like ACORN, are demanding money from the bailout.

If you haven't read it yet, read
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._strategy.html

The goal behind the crisis is the stress the system, to bring it crashing down, to loot the government dry and re-distribute the wealth. The jackals are in the pantry and they won't be sated with anything but everything.

The real kicker is the Obama himself is up to his eyeballs in blame. He helped get the ball rolling with ACORN in Chicago. He represented Acorn as they sued banks to crack open the till for unsuitable loans.

I'm afraid that if he wins, we're not going back to anything. It will be a full speed radical railroading of wealth redistribution and full bore open Marxism. Grab the lube, it's bohica time.

[Ryan Ruck]

The real kicker is the Obama himself is up to his eyeballs in blame. He helped get the ball rolling with ACORN in Chicago. He represented Acorn as they sued banks to crack open the till for unsuitable loans.

No, the REAL kicker is the McCain campaign's complete unwillingness to openly call Obama on the mat for these things. Republicans seem to constantly make the mistake of trying to fight a "gentleman's war" in the political arena and John McCain is probably the worst of these offenders. We need people who will jump in the trenches and start fighting just as dirty as the Dems. Fight fire with fire...

[American Patriot]

Ryan, point of order, please.

You wrote: "These are seeds of destruction that have been planted by the external leftist forces known as the Trans-Asian Axis with the hopes of it weakening us to where we can easily be neutralized."

Are you referring to this forum (Trans-Asian Axis) as being leftist, or are you referring to a supposed coalition of Asian agencies exerting an attack on the U.S.?

Also, I believe some definition needs to be given to the meaning of Conservative Right. Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing there seems to be no cut-and-dry of the a definition.

Here's your "point of order". The definition of "Conservatism" is QUITE clear and so is the definition of Liberalism.

And I haven't finished the thread yet, but when Ryan refers to the TAA he is talking about our definition of TAA as given in the TOS, FAQ, main page, et cetera. (NOT this SITE)

Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

Copyright 2005 StudentNewsDaily.com

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

THE ISSUES:

ISSUE	CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL
Abortion	Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being. Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" (partial birth abortion - the killing of an unborn baby of at least 20 weeks by pulling it out of the birth canal with forceps, but leaving the head inside. An incision is made in the back of the baby's neck and the brain tissue is suctioned out. The head is then removed from the uterus.)	A fetus is not a human life. The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government should stay out of it. Women should be guaranteed the right to a safe and legal abortion, including partial birth abortion.
Affirmative action	People should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse-discrimination is not a solution for racism.	Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. We need to make up for that. Support affirmative action based on the belief that America is still a racist society. Minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success. Also, the presence of minorities creates diversity.
Death penalty	The death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime; it is neither ‘cruel' nor ‘unusual'. Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.	We should abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual' punishment. It does not deter crime. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Every execution risks killing an innocent person.
Economy	The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise afford the widest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.	Favor a market system in which government regulates the economy. We need government to protect us against big businesses. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. We need government regulation to level the playing field.
Education - school vouchers	School vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools. Parents (who pay the taxes that fund the schools) should decide how and where to educate their child.	School vouchers are untested experiments. We need to focus on more funding for existing public schools -to raise teacher salaries and reduce class size.
the Environment	Desire clean water, clean air and a clean planet, just like everyone else. However, extreme environmental policies destroy jobs and damage the economy. Changes in global temperatures are natural over long periods of time. So far, science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth's temperature.	Conservatives don't care about protecting the environment. Industrial growth harms the environment. Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide. The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide. The U.S. should enact laws to significantly reduce that amount.
Gun control	The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.	The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.
Health care	Free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized. Support Healthcare Spending Accounts.	Support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to healthcare.
Homeland security	Wary of parts of the Patriot Act	Oppose the Patriot Act
Immigration	Support legal immigration at current numbers, but do not support illegal immigration. Government should enforce immigration laws. Oppose President Bush's amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally. If there were a decrease in cheap, illegal immigrant labor, employers would have to substitute higher-priced domestic employees, legal immigrants, or perhaps increase mechanization.	Support legal immigration and increasing the number of legal immigrants permitted to enter the U.S. each year. Support blanket amnesty for current illegal immigrants. Believe that regardless of how they came to the U.S., illegal immigrants deserve: - U.S. government financial aid for college tuition. - visas for spouse/children to come to the U.S. Families shouldn't be separated. Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans do not want to do.
Religion	The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Oppose the removal of symbols of Christian heritage from public and government spaces. Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.	Support the separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government. Support the removal of all references to God in public and government spaces. Religion should not interfere with government.
Same-sex marriage	Marriage is between one man and one woman. Opinions differ on support for the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Believe that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.	Marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to ensure equal rights for all. All individuals, regardless of their sex, have the right to marry. Believe that prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them of their civil rights. Opinions differ on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans.
Social Security	The current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because the U.S. will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government.	Generally oppose change to the current Social Security system. Opinions vary on whether the current system is in financial trouble. Changing the current system will cause people to lose their Social Security benefits. Support a cap on Social Security payments to the wealthy.
Taxes	Support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it.	Support higher taxes and a larger government. High taxes enable the government to do good and create jobs. We need high taxes for social welfare programs, to provide for the poor. We can't afford to cut taxes.
United Nations (UN)	The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission: to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses of the majority of its member states (and the UN's failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN.	The United States has a moral and a legal obligation to support the United Nations (UN). The UN can be effective in promoting peace and human rights. The U.S. should not have acted in Iraq without UN approval. The U.S. should submit its national interests to the greater good (as defined by the UN).
War in Iraq	This was a preemptive strike to protect the U.S. All intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the past and was prepared to use them again. He would not allow United Nations weapons inspectors to confirm his claim that he had destroyed his WMDs. A democracy can succeed in Iraq if the people are given the opportunity to create one. All people want to live in freedom.	This is Bush's war for oil. Saddam Hussein was no real threat. We have not found weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), so Saddam did not have any. President Bush lied about WMDs and the dangers posed by Saddam. We should have given the UN more time. We have alienated the rest of the world by our unilateral action (‘go it alone' attitude). A democracy can't succeed in Iraq. Not everyone wants to live in a democracy.
War on terror/terrorism	The world toward which the Militant Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the Western world. In the last decade, Militant Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and American interests here and abroad. The terrorists must be stopped and destroyed.	9/11 was caused by America's arrogant foreign policy. America needs to stop angering other countries. The threat posed by terrorism is exaggerated by President Bush for his own political advantage.
Welfare	Oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money.	Support welfare. We need welfare to provide for the poor. Conservatives oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.

Copyright 2005 StudentNewsDaily.com


http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/othe...beral-beliefs/

[American Patriot]

There is no question in the matters at hand.

Conservatives are Republicans, even if all Republicans these days are NOT Conservatives. While some are arguing that "the party left us" which is indeed true, I argue that if you're a Conservative and you walk away from the PARTY OF LINCOLN then you're a fool. If you're a Republican and NOT Conservative then you're an IDIOT.

Democrats are NOT LIBERALS, they are MODERATES. While ALL LIBERALS are DEMOCRATS and they usurp the abilities of those like Joe Liberman (someone I don't agree with MOST of the time, but at least he isn't a complete idiot) to get a message across.

In fact, ladies and gentlemen, while there are those who say that the world isn't "black and white" but "shades of gray" they are both right and WRONG. Those who say it are LIBERALS. They BELIEVE in socialism, killing babies, saving criminals and government "controls" on the market place.

NONE of those things are good, or right. Therefore, Wallis, your opinion that there is no cut and clear definition of "Conservatism" is dead wrong, and exactly the reason this country is in such a disarray today, because of people like you who want to "fail to see the facts".

[Ryan Ruck]

Ryan, point of order, please.

You wrote: "These are seeds of destruction that have been planted by the external leftist forces known as the Trans-Asian Axis with the hopes of it weakening us to where we can easily be neutralized."

Are you referring to this forum (Trans-Asian Axis) as being leftist, or are you referring to a supposed coalition of Asian agencies exerting an attack on the U.S.?

Sorry wallis, missed your post.

I am talking about the latter. This site was named after that since that is the focus of the majority of our discussion.

[wallis]

Thank you, Rick, for the oblique attack. It's nice to know that someone else is in my head thinking and judging me. But not taking any time to understand me. Then again, this is your usual modus operandi, and I forgive you for just being you. Please don't change.

I liked your table.

But the problem with this cut-and-dry table is that many people do not "vote" for one slate (conservatism or liberalism) but tend to embrace ideas on both sides of the table. Or, more to reality, agree with only parts of each example given in the table and disagree with other parts within each example.

For example, a person can live with abortion as the right of the woman but totally abhor partial abortions.

It is interesting, Rick, that you have continually disrespected me on this forum. That I do not face YOUR facts means that you are an ultra-conservative? In light of all of my research on the Internet, your conservatism might have changed towards the liberal side.

You had dissed my distinguishd military career. You have dissed my 35-year Intelligence career. You have basically called me a "liar" when I shared actually conversations with my military and civilian superiors.

You have called me a war-monger, and that is far from the facts.

You have called me a rumor-monger, when as an investigative journalist, I first broke the up-and-coming story that hit all the media fans and took up a great deal of media time. And, I have never received an apology from you [not that I have expected one].

But in your world of "facts," I just don't fit the your bill. And, I suppose, that in your "back to basics," you would nail my head to the Senate wall and spike my tongue. I feel pity that I am such a "threat" to you and your world of how it should be: meaning your way or the highway.

[wallis]

Luke,

After writing the first post, I started doing some research on the Internet. Although I cannot remember all the details, apparently at least two states allowed women to vote. So, I admit that my blanket statement about women was incorrect.

After finding the quotes, I could not help feel that someone should be going back to our founding fathers and listening to their advice. They almost feel like they are relevantly talking to us today.

[wallis]

Ryan,

I thought you were referring to the latter (reference my post on the matter), but since I apparently have such a small brain, I appreciate the comeback.