The Fundamental Principles of this Great Nation Would be in Jeopardy

[HeavyStick]

I am Patriotic and I love this country.

Enough said. I've lost faith in almost every politician above the state level. The party lines are too thick and IMHO there is no representation of the "people", but representation for two parties who "think" they represent the people who got them there.

With that being said I didn't read your entire post. Was there any mention of sex or violence against mimes?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Yeah, a real patriot you are...





lavy on Sarah
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=611105






Mature, reasoned, deep-thinking, never spiteful towards other citizens over petty crap...

 

[Lost Cause]

The fundamental principles are already in danger...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."

Marcus Tullius Cicero 79 BC

 

[miles]

You basically didn't get my post considering that I specifically set apart issues regarding free market/economic policy - and looked more at ideals based on the actual way the government functions and our individual rights. So....

Karen, you never seek to let me down as the bastion of wiki-culture. In other words, one who really has no understanding of things - but is damn good at internet searches. Props to you - you are a poster child for what is wrong with education in our country. You should be proud.

I don't know anyone on Lit with a more condescending, snotty, attitude. I'll bet you're a joy at work.

 

[firespin]

I don't know anyone on Lit with a more condescending, snotty, attitude. I'll bet you're a joy at work.

Can't you read, Miles? They love her at her work. That's why they give her awards and have her supervise, whereas the other guys in their office, they just give them more money.

I'm sure the awards are embossed and everything.

 

[miles]

Can't you read, Miles? They love her at her work. That's why they give her awards and have her supervise, whereas the other guys in their office, they just give them more money.

I'm sure the awards are embossed and everything.

That's because the place is run by right-wing conservative Christians who want to keep women in their place. People who complain about how other people are paid are losers.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't know anyone on Lit with a more condescending, snotty, attitude. I'll bet you're a joy at work.

You're so bitchy this morning, Miles!

 

[lavender]

That's because the place is run by right-wing conservative Christians who want to keep women in their place. People who complain about how other people are paid are losers.

Actually and unfortunately, it's run by people who support the Democratic party. It's not unfortunate that they support the party - it's unfortunate that they don't understand and practice what they vote for.

 

[mark_j]

As much as I may agree or dis-agree with Lavender's original post, it sure would be nice if KK would take the bloody oversize picture down so that I could actually read the fucking thing!!!

 

[Shugahhhh]

Great post, Lav.

 

[FaustARP]

Is it really so wrong to say that I am not patriotic?

That while I don't hold the delusion that America is exclusively comprised of stupid, uninteresting people, I don't have a lot of pride in what America has come to stand for?

God forbid, I don't think America is the greatest country on Earth?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

As much as I may agree or dis-agree with Lavender's original post, it sure would be nice if KK would take the bloody oversize picture down so that I could actually read the fucking thing!!!

Makes you think someone actually hit a little too close to home with her Wiki accusation, wouldn't you?

And Lav, that post was one of the best I've read on this site, barring the sex-related ones. Thank you very much.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Makes you think someone actually hit a little too close to home with her Wiki accusation, wouldn't you?

Poor Karen couldn't handle the heat, now she'll be forced to peddle her wikiKraft in other threads.

I did notice Karen lacked the class to leave gracefully, she had to leave a big oversized picture to "mark her territory" as she left in a huff.

Must be that private school upbringing...

 

[Azwed]

As much as I may agree or dis-agree with Lavender's original post, it sure would be nice if KK would take the bloody oversize picture down so that I could actually read the fucking thing!!!

Just put her on ignore. That is what I did and I don't know when or if I will take her or if I will take her off after doing something so childish. I want to post more buylt I am at work and can't really post anything very long from my phone.

 

[mark_j]

Makes you think someone actually hit a little too close to home with her Wiki accusation, wouldn't you?

Could be. Although, I sometimes think that Lavender's distaste for Wiki based research is almost rude but that is only my opinion.. In defense of KK, IF that is what this was over at least she had the where with all to use Wiki as part of her research instead of quoting some of the less reputable blogs that some other posters seem to like...

 

[firespin]

As much as I may agree or dis-agree with Lavender's original post, it sure would be nice if KK would take the bloody oversize picture down so that I could actually read the fucking thing!!!

I'll save you some time.

She doesn't like Palin, so comes up with every negative argument she can about her.

She seems to get paid by the word, so there was some additional detail around that, but that's the crux of it.

 

[mark_j]

Just put her on ignore. That is what I did and I don't know when or if I will take her or if I will take her off after doing something so childish. I want to post more buylt I am at work and can't really post anything very long from my phone.

I hate putting people on ignore unless they are completely out of line.. In this case it might not warrant iggy but it sure colors my opinion now..

 

[mark_j]

I'll save you some time.

She doesn't like Palin, so comes up with every negative argument she can about her.

She seems to get paid by the word, so there was some additional detail around that, but that's the crux of it.

I understand that.. and while I may not totally agree I do think that Palin was used to appeal to the fundi base and as such is pretty insignificant. It's probably a good bet that if McCain gets in office they are going put a pretty short leash on her..

 

[Colonel Hogan]

As usual Lavey, you make some good points, but I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate based on the qualifications or lack thereof of his or her vice presidential candidate.

I am voting for McCain because Obama scares me as much as Palin scares you.

Sarah Palin is getting far more attention in this campaign than she deserves. I am convinced that if McCain is elected she will play an extremely insignificant role in his administration.

The heartbeat away ramifications are real, but certainly not inevitable as many seem to believe.

Besides, if I have to chose between a president whose major characteristic is lack of depth versus one who I believe to be sinister and manipulative, I'll go with lack of depth.

 

[KRCummings]

It has to be as a write-in and I'm sure I'm on a list somewhere for doing it but I've voted for these guys in the past and I'm gonna do it again.
http://www.themilitant.com/2008/ElectionCampaign/platform.html

http://ronwade.freeservers.com/CaleroKennedyRound.jpg

 

[IrezumiKiss]

As usual Lavey, you make some good points, but I refuse to vote for a Presidential candidate based on the qualifications or lack thereof of his or her vice presidential candidate.

I am voting for McCain because Obama scares me as much as Palin scares you.

Sarah Palin is getting far more attention in this campaign than she deserves. I am convinced that if McCain is elected she will play an extremely insignificant role in his administration.

The heartbeat away ramifications are real, but certainly not inevitable as many seem to believe.

Besides, if I have to chose between a president whose major characteristic is lack of depth versus one who I believe to be sinister and manipulative, I'll go with lack of depth.

Palin is not only a good example of who McCain believes is in our best interests of governing this country, as a partner. She is the symbol of how he thinks and how he makes decisions. And if she was a concession to something else he wanted more but was directed not to choose, then that war hero should've fought harder for what he wanted.

In the end, we're left with his choice. I don't see people making tons of jokes about Obama's choice, although the jokes exist. But you can see who is actually getting true respect here, can't you?

Is she truly the best choice to represent him, to stand by his side, as a partner in helping him govern? I find that difficult to believe. I think she is good enough for her and hers, back in Alaska. I have no issues with her as a person.

But I don't see the presidency or the vice-presidency as some contest where you can hope to get in using all your tricks and if you do, you can coast for four years on the joy of winning and being able to say I got the medal, even if you do a bad job during the whole run because you have nothing to lose after those four years are up. I don't see Dubya shedding any tears for his eight years.

Well, maybe that's what we've been having or what we're used to. If that's the honest truth about the way we look at this country's leadership and of ourselves, then we have no biz complaining about anything that's going on today.

I'll save you some time.

She doesn't like Palin, so comes up with every negative argument she can about her.

She seems to get paid by the word, so there was some additional detail around that, but that's the crux of it.

Except that most of the Obama Haters (not synonymous with "McCain Supporters") here have done the exact same thing with Obama since the beginning of the year and beyond, with an almost fanatical, xenophobic glee. Some with go-nowhere, multiple posts in a single thread that makes it seem like they get paid by the load.

Except that Lavender has backed up her dislike of Palin and the McCain campaign with facts and reasoning in her own words rather than parroting of internet company memos and soundbites and defecting, would-be witty snark taking up multiple one-sentence posts in a single thread trying to pretend to have discussion about "issues."

If there is any negative to what Lavender wrote in this thread, it's that it was too good for this place.

 

[Karen Kraft]

As much as I may agree or dis-agree with Lavender's original post, it sure would be nice if KK would take the bloody oversize picture down so that I could actually read the fucking thing!!!

Uh-oh.

That would be much too complicated for a cut-and-paste wiki person.

Have someone else do it for me. I'm not able.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Could be. Although, I sometimes think that Lavender's distaste for Wiki based research is almost rude but that is only my opinion.. In defense of KK, IF that is what this was over at least she had the where with all to use Wiki as part of her research instead of quoting some of the less reputable blogs that some other posters seem to like...

All posts of an historic nature must reflect some sort of research -- either through books and magazines, or the Internet.

Unlike the OP, I was not actually present when Jefferson and Madison were discussing social and political ideology, so I am forced to depend on published works. I envy the OP, as she has first hand knowledge of classical philosophy, having personally been in the room, forum, tent, when they were originally formulated. That's why they had to enlarge the tent.

 

[Aliea]

Resize your idiotic picture.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I am Patriotic and I love this country. My love of this country has not come merely from a feeling akin to rooting for your football team, or needing to have extreme pride for the place where you live, but from a long-time studying the great history of this nation, the founding fathers, the principles upon which our country was grounded, the constitution, the federalist papers, and how our country has acted through its history.

I deeply believe that an understanding of this history and the constitutional bedrock upon which this great constitutional republic was founded are so important to knowing how we should govern ourselves today and in the future.

This is beyond the simple partisan bickering the "blue team" versus "red team" and who is going to win an election. Despite disagreement with many of them, I think Nixon understood the greatness of this nation and its people. I think Reagan and Bush Sr. understood the greatness of this nation and its people. And I believe that McCain understands this as well.

I believe that those for whom I have voted for President, be it Clinton, Gore, Kerry and in this election Obama understood this history and these bedrock principles.

These men who have run for the Presidential office and who have led for both parties, had a deep understanding of our history and an appreciation for the constitutional principles upon which this nation is founded. They may have different interpretations of how the market should deal with itself, whether we should emphasize social justice, economic justice, distributive principles, etc. They may have governed differently. But, at the end of the day they had an understanding and an appreciation of what they were fighting for and standing for - some more than others, of course.

I think one of my main problems with Bush and Cheney was that I never believed Bush had this understanding and I think the Bush/Cheney administration has looked at the Constitution like individuals and companies look at the tax code - looking for the loopholes rather than understanding the greatness of the principles embodied in the separation of powers and the bill of rights, just to name a few.

But, from this perspective and from my reading, I am terribly and deeply fearful of what could be wrought on this country should Sarah Palin be elected to office.

I could post about trivial things about Sarah Palin right now, how she winked at the debate, how some Republican commentators all but said they got a huge woody at home feeling the "starbursts" on the screen, and many of the other superficial and trivial things I may have said about Sarah Palin in the past. But, the more and more I read about her - the more and more dangerous I think she is. Not because of what she represents - but because what she "believes" and what she simply does not seem to know.

I think it is easy to cloak oneself unknowingly and just in blind faith in the greatnesss of this nation - to wrap yourself in the flag but not understand that it is what the flag symbolizes that makes it such a powerful representative of our history and the freedoms and rights we possess and share in this country.

Through listening to Sarah Palin, I do not believe she has this understanding and knowledge. I cannot imagine a President being sworn in to protect the Constitution of the United States when you have such a lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles upon which you are swearing.

Although this is antecdotal, Sarah Palin's answers in the Couric interview, the Gibson interview, and the debate do not dispel but only heighten these fears. One critical question about whether the vice president is in the executive or legislative branch was unclearly addressed by Palin. But, it appears that she believes like Cheney that the Vice President is not really a part of the executive branch.

This scares me as being Cheney-esque. But, I'm sure a handful of probably somewhat disreputable constitutional theorists believe this. So, I can say I feel it's dangerous but deal with it and know that I'm not going to vote for her.

This scares me. She does not appear to have the fundamental understanding of checks and balances, separation of powers, and how the executive, legislative, and judicial branches work together.

How can I have any faith in a person upholding the Constitution if from the onset it is so clear she has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of these critical principles upon which our nation is based and has governed itself for well over two centuries?

That's just one thing. There is also the entire way Sarah Palin has dealt with the "press." While I can hede the facts that sometimes the mainstream media is not the best source of all information, do we really need to completely demonize the press? Just because some negative things come out about you - do we really need to blame simply the people who recorded your statements or asked you questions?

Recently, in a speech or on an interview, Palin discussed the freedom of the press as a "privilege." When I read this, I was dumbfounded. You see there is a huge debate in our society, for those who don't know and I'm sure many of you do, as to what constitutes a "right" and what constitutes a "privilege." There is a huge ideological different on these things between different types of constitutional theorists. Typically, more liberal thinkers actually like to enumerate additional rights while many more conservative thinkers want to discuss things no specifically enumerated in the constituion as a "privilege."

The problem with calling the freedom of the press a "privilege" is that it flies directly and unequivocally in the fact of the First Amendment which explicitly establishes a right of the freedom of the press.

I could go back and search for numerous historical quotes from our founding fathers, the federalist papers, and numerous amazing Supreme Court opinions throughout the ages discussing about this cherished freedom.

You see, freedom of the press is what differentiates the United States from those communist countries we despise. It was Putin's crackdown on the media in Russia that made us know that "democracy" in Russia was in dire condition and the past authoritarianism was on the rise again in that country.

It was a robust press and the opening up of Russia with glasnost - i.e. allowing more freedom for the press - that acted with other factors in bringing down that wall of communism.

The marketplace of ideas and the role of the press is such a fundeamental principle in our nation that despite the fact that the press can be annoying or the press can ask dumb questions like asking a person who just watched their house burn down how they feel.

But, it is incredibly important for our elected officials to speak before the press, to allow the press to question. In such a large, diverse democracy as ours, it is the press that allows the voters to know who they are voting for and what we are voting about. Without the press, in this vast society, there is little to know way that was can make an educated vote.

Thus, to demonize the press at every point (despite whether it is an effective political tactic) while calling the freeom of the press a "privilege" really bothers me. I think we have seen what a heavy presidential hand with the press can be like through the last 8 years.

Only to further highlight this is the fact that Sarah Palin has not even held a single press conference. In fact when a voter asked Palin a question it was called gotcha journalism. Palin is the pitbull and is throwing a ton of rocks, but then hiding her hand. No questions from the press, no interviews except under certain circumstances and conditions, and no press conferences. What in the world? This is America. This is the type of tactic that is used in non-democratic countries not a nation who values the vote and the freedom of the press as much as ours.

The concept of separation of church and state with Sarah Palin bothers me a great deal. While I understand one's religious beliefs guiding their lives - I come from a deeply evangelical Chrisian family and was raised with these beliefs - I also understand the history of this country, why it was founded, and why freedom of religion and separation of church and state were engrained in the greatest document to represent our ideals. But, from viewing Sarah Palin's comments on religion and the beliefs she seems to hold and have been raised upon, I fear that religion would completely infuse our government with her in power. While, we can look at the morals of Judeo Christian beliefs and put them to work in our government, to some extent - i.e. what is criminal behavior, what we hold ourselves out for, to govern on religious principles is a theocracy not a democracy. Does Sarah Palin understand this? I'm deeply afraid that she does not - and feels that somehow she embodies how we need more religions in government we need the principles of church in the state not separated from it.

What is so odd about this is the discussion of spreading democracy throughout the globe? Does she understand what principles we are spreading? How does that square with the way she seems to believe our democracy functions at home. When the former Soviet Union split and American scholars went to help write the constitutions of these newly emerging democracies - some of these freedoms and principles, which I have discussed above, including separation of church and state were what we worked with them to include - to show them how a democracy should work.

How can we continue to spread this democracy when our own leaders don't understand what makes our democracy the greatest on the planet?

I know we need people who represent and understand the plight of the average American. We do not need our leaders to be so insulated and out of touch with what the average American believes and facts. But, don't we want the best and brightest - those who have real ideas (not just talking points that they have new ideas), and understanding of how these ideas are put in effect in our government - governing us? How can we elect to lead this great nation someone who does not even show a bit of understanding of what makes this nation great - not talking points - but the ideas of our forefathers, the principles of the constitution, why American democracy was the surviving ideology in the 20th century and beyond.

This weekend, I was away from my house and did not read. On my travels home, I listened to the news from various channels on XM. And that's when I heard the comments from Sarah Palin as she is going on the attack against Barack Obama. Politics as usual - in many ways yes. I could start speaking about the comments on Ayers - but that's not what bothered me the most.

What bothered me the most was the statement that- "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

Inherent in this comment to me is that Barack Obama is some "other." The way that he has been painted in mass e-mails (admittedly not by the campaign itself) as a Muslim, and exotic. The way he had to overcome charges about his education in Indonesia, a ton of rumors about his background, and that yes he is truly African American.

The way that Palin would make the dig that Obama does not see America the same way - indicating that somehow he hates this country or that somehow he's not "one of us," "un-American" or "unpatriotic" really gets me to my core.

We are a nation that is in a financial and economic crisis, whose fighting two wars on foreign soil, trying to deal with global terrorism, growing threats from Russia, growing threats to our environment.

Do we really need a culture war at this time? Do we really need such division?

There seems to be an undercurrent - whether it is ethnocentric, racist, classist, whatever.....to this comment. An undercurrent that divides us - not unites us. Do we really want to be divided through this pettiness at this time in our history? Haven't we come so far - do we really want to turn the clock back? Do we really have such little respect for the way Americans have realized some of the hate and discrimination of our past - and allowed it to create a nation that embodies those principles of inalienable rights and equal opportunity and that we are essentially all equals as citizens of the United States.

For what? To win an election?

At what cost do you win an election? At what point is it so important that the "blue team" or "red team" wins - that we compromise the principles upon which this country is founded.

How can we be that shining beacon on a hill when pictures of us torturing others are spread throughout the world? How can we be the country promoting democracy and out democratic principles, when leaders are seemingly more tied to concepts of theocracy rather than freedom of religion and separation of church and state? How can we be the country promoting democracy when we suspend habeas corpus in our own country?

When you say you are patriotic - what makes you patriotic? It's not just love of America as in the actual plot of land upon which we live. It's the love of our ideals, our values, the principles that have guided this country.

How can we even consider a person who so clearly does not understand or seem to have any knowledge of these principles.

It's easy to talk generically about freedom. It's easy to talk generally about America. But, at some point you have to geat some meat as to what this country actually stands for and show that you are going to promote that view - based upon the actual principles not just some whim that you think is right.

This woman truly scares me in a way that even Bush/Cheney did not and do not. As I read about her and the way she governed in Alaska, she did not want the long thoughtful answers - she wanted bulletpoints (kinda like Bush). She did not want to hear dissent (kinda like Bush). She had a view - whether it was grounded in reality and gacts or not - and dammit, that's the way it was going to be.

This is way too long now and I have much more to say. But, I'm just so incredibly disheartened that even after she has demonstrated this so many people actually still support her just because she's like them, or winked at them, or spoke to them on a personal level. I do get that to some extent - but there's a larger picture out there. This is not about the trees, it's about the forest. I don't think she looks past the bark.

If for some reason, this politics of divisiveness wins this time, I will probably be stunned at first. And whether it is from shock, or from fear, or from disgust, or feeling insulted, I will shed a tear.

Despite those who think I'm just some wacky liberal, I actually have a great love for this country and all its people - even those who don't agree with me at all. We don't deserve her.

I won't shed a tear because the "blue team" lost - but because the principles and ideals of our country lost and will be in jeopardy.

It's beyond who is going to raise taxes or not, who has a better health care plan, who will drill or not, who will invade Iran or not (although that one scares the living bejeezus out of me).

I never thought John McCain would do this, I really feel betrayed by a man for whom I did at one time have great respect. I cannot believe someone who suffered like he did, like my uncles did in the same war and other more brutal POW camps, would give a boost to the career of a woman who has no real idea of the reason the principles of this country are worthy and deserving of such sacrifice.

Is this some sort of parody?