Why Do They Hate America?
-
I've been curious about the motivation of some of the "hate America first" crowd on CP like Red and Stan. They despise the very things that make the United States a great nation: freedom, tolerance, interoperability, etc. The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws. They also believe the landed gentry should control the means of (agrarian, of course) production and capital, and that there should be no national military. After all, the framers of US Constitution never envisioned nor wanted a permanent standing Army. What's up with the attitude, America-haters?
They (Stan and Red) are sick and tired of the left hijacking the Constitution to fit their own purposes and desires. We have liberal judges making law instead of interpreting law. It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws. The 14th Amenedment has been used to by-pass the the Bill of Rights. Liberals take the viewpoint tht if the Constitution says you can't do it, then it's lawful to do it. The conservatives, on the other hand, insist that if the Constitution does not extend the power to do something, then it is not lawful. Unfortuneatly, the balance has tilted in the liberals direction every since the 14th Amendment came into being, IMHO. Conservatives would like to see the INTENT of the Founding Fathers carried out. That is as much a part of constitutional law as the Constitution itself. You see, it is not the conservatives that find fault with the USA --- it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get. So let's throw the question back at you, Ed --- why do you hate America so much that you can only find fault and nothing good (unless it's something a Democrat does or says)?
John P.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
the hate-America-firsters
When you use this kind of silly name calling I tend to ignore any rational dialog that follows.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
When you use this kind of silly name calling I tend to ignore any rational dialog that follows
I don't blame you. I did the same when I heard talk of armed revolution if "far-left-winger Nancy Pelosi (from !@#$# San Francisco)" was elected Speaker of the House.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
the hate-America-firsters
When you use this kind of silly name calling I tend to ignore any rational dialog that follows.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
silly name calling
Guess I've been listening to too much Rush and Ann lately.
-
I've been curious about the motivation of some of the "hate America first" crowd on CP like Red and Stan. They despise the very things that make the United States a great nation: freedom, tolerance, interoperability, etc. The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws. They also believe the landed gentry should control the means of (agrarian, of course) production and capital, and that there should be no national military. After all, the framers of US Constitution never envisioned nor wanted a permanent standing Army. What's up with the attitude, America-haters?
As I said below... I freely and happily admit that I absolutely hate what the forces of socialism have done to America via the 14th amendment. But then, in my lexicon, hate is not nessarily a bad word. Some things deserve to be hated. People such as yourself, Ed, have completely destroyed the government that every single American soldier fought to defend from 1776 until 1945. Your side of the political debate has made a mockery of every single principle Americans fought and died and sacrificed for for nearly 200 years. You want us to be nothing more than another little european style social welfare state. I do so very much hate your version of what this country is supposed to be, and you hate mine. Where does that leave us?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
They (Stan and Red) are sick and tired of the left hijacking the Constitution to fit their own purposes and desires. We have liberal judges making law instead of interpreting law. It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws. The 14th Amenedment has been used to by-pass the the Bill of Rights. Liberals take the viewpoint tht if the Constitution says you can't do it, then it's lawful to do it. The conservatives, on the other hand, insist that if the Constitution does not extend the power to do something, then it is not lawful. Unfortuneatly, the balance has tilted in the liberals direction every since the 14th Amendment came into being, IMHO. Conservatives would like to see the INTENT of the Founding Fathers carried out. That is as much a part of constitutional law as the Constitution itself. You see, it is not the conservatives that find fault with the USA --- it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get. So let's throw the question back at you, Ed --- why do you hate America so much that you can only find fault and nothing good (unless it's something a Democrat does or says)?
John P.
jparken wrote:
It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws.
And for the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws.
jparken wrote:
it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
-
I've been curious about the motivation of some of the "hate America first" crowd on CP like Red and Stan. They despise the very things that make the United States a great nation: freedom, tolerance, interoperability, etc. The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws. They also believe the landed gentry should control the means of (agrarian, of course) production and capital, and that there should be no national military. After all, the framers of US Constitution never envisioned nor wanted a permanent standing Army. What's up with the attitude, America-haters?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws.
Ha! What poppycock! Of course, the only proper way to run a country is by decree from a large, centralized government, proposed by those groomed for the task and thoroughly vetted by the honorable representatives of Finance and Industry. Why, anything else would run the risk of introducing undesirable influences - those local bumpkins might try just anything. "Democracy" - how absurd! :rolleyes:
----
i hope you are feeling sleepy for people not calling you by the same.
--BarnaKol on abusive words
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The way they tell it, the US should be a loose collection of 50 fiefdoms with each fiefdom having its own set of non-interoperable laws.
Ha! What poppycock! Of course, the only proper way to run a country is by decree from a large, centralized government, proposed by those groomed for the task and thoroughly vetted by the honorable representatives of Finance and Industry. Why, anything else would run the risk of introducing undesirable influences - those local bumpkins might try just anything. "Democracy" - how absurd! :rolleyes:
----
i hope you are feeling sleepy for people not calling you by the same.
--BarnaKol on abusive words
You forgot the Military wing of the Corporate-Industrial-Military complex.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
the US founding fathers did want each state to have a certain level of independence
Of course.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
What's the point of local and state governments if not to tailor local and state law?/blockquote> Not at the expense of national unity and purpose. For example, if the federal government had not exercised iron-handed enforcement of the commerce clause, we'd be a third-rate nobody. But the hate-America-firsters claim the feds have no right to interfere with state and local control.
Wow. Code Project really borked that post formatting somehow. Anywho:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
For example, if the federal government had not exercised iron-handed enforcement of the commerce clause, we'd be a third-rate nobody. But the hate-America-firsters claim the feds have no right to interfere with state and local control.
You've set up a straw-man, Ed. It's not either-or: some powers are appropriate to the Federal government, and others were intended to be left to the states. Speeding limits and ID cards, for example (National ID anyone? Personally I'll be the first rebel to refuse to get one). The founders did this for two reasons. One, they were deeply suspicious of any sort of centralized power. They had seen what absolute rule could do to a government and to a people, and they didn't want a repeat (and make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what we are living under today). Second, they KNEW that society would change, technology would change, and the world would change, and they knew that those changes would be too fast and too many for a solid document like the Constitution to possibly adapt to them all. Thus, they wanted the more lithe, agile governments - state and local governments - to be responsible for issues that the Constitution was ill-equipped to deal with. As Captain Janeway so eloquently put it on a recent re-run of Voyager: "The Federation Charter is a statement of principles, not a practical document." The same is essentially true of our Constitution. It lays down the basic framework; the implementation must be left to the states and to future generations. The founders were deeply afraid that people would take that framework, the Constitution, and look at it as a complete entity. This was one of the reasons for the 400-page Federalist Papers, containing the near-complete volume of thought ever produced by our founders about what they intended for our nation. I have read the book, and it has influenced everything I think about our nation. Sometimes on this board I will come off sounding conservative; others, I will sound very liberal. This is because I am doing my level best to understand what our founders wanted for us, and to live by that tradition - not to live IN the past, but use it as a guide to the future. Frankly, neither political party in this country has that in mind. They BOTH are after things diametrically opposed to a free nation. It makes me sick to my stomach to vote, because I'm always vo
-
As I said below... I freely and happily admit that I absolutely hate what the forces of socialism have done to America via the 14th amendment. But then, in my lexicon, hate is not nessarily a bad word. Some things deserve to be hated. People such as yourself, Ed, have completely destroyed the government that every single American soldier fought to defend from 1776 until 1945. Your side of the political debate has made a mockery of every single principle Americans fought and died and sacrificed for for nearly 200 years. You want us to be nothing more than another little european style social welfare state. I do so very much hate your version of what this country is supposed to be, and you hate mine. Where does that leave us?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where does that leave us?
That, Stan, is the right question. There's no answer, least not one I can see. Escalation only ever ends one way.
Cheers, Patrick
-
jparken wrote:
It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws.
And for the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws.
jparken wrote:
it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
respect for law and respect for human rights
If you had ANY respect for law, then you would have to agree that the court system MAKING laws is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We have respect for human right s as much as anyone. What we don't have respect for is for people like you to claim that ILLEGAL ALIENS have more rights than citizens of this country! So maybe you should "get over it".
John P.
-
Wow. Code Project really borked that post formatting somehow. Anywho:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
For example, if the federal government had not exercised iron-handed enforcement of the commerce clause, we'd be a third-rate nobody. But the hate-America-firsters claim the feds have no right to interfere with state and local control.
You've set up a straw-man, Ed. It's not either-or: some powers are appropriate to the Federal government, and others were intended to be left to the states. Speeding limits and ID cards, for example (National ID anyone? Personally I'll be the first rebel to refuse to get one). The founders did this for two reasons. One, they were deeply suspicious of any sort of centralized power. They had seen what absolute rule could do to a government and to a people, and they didn't want a repeat (and make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what we are living under today). Second, they KNEW that society would change, technology would change, and the world would change, and they knew that those changes would be too fast and too many for a solid document like the Constitution to possibly adapt to them all. Thus, they wanted the more lithe, agile governments - state and local governments - to be responsible for issues that the Constitution was ill-equipped to deal with. As Captain Janeway so eloquently put it on a recent re-run of Voyager: "The Federation Charter is a statement of principles, not a practical document." The same is essentially true of our Constitution. It lays down the basic framework; the implementation must be left to the states and to future generations. The founders were deeply afraid that people would take that framework, the Constitution, and look at it as a complete entity. This was one of the reasons for the 400-page Federalist Papers, containing the near-complete volume of thought ever produced by our founders about what they intended for our nation. I have read the book, and it has influenced everything I think about our nation. Sometimes on this board I will come off sounding conservative; others, I will sound very liberal. This is because I am doing my level best to understand what our founders wanted for us, and to live by that tradition - not to live IN the past, but use it as a guide to the future. Frankly, neither political party in this country has that in mind. They BOTH are after things diametrically opposed to a free nation. It makes me sick to my stomach to vote, because I'm always vo
Patrick Sears wrote:
I have considered running for office simply BECAUSE I am so disillusioned
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
respect for law and respect for human rights
If you had ANY respect for law, then you would have to agree that the court system MAKING laws is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We have respect for human right s as much as anyone. What we don't have respect for is for people like you to claim that ILLEGAL ALIENS have more rights than citizens of this country! So maybe you should "get over it".
John P.
jparken wrote:
people like you to claim that ILLEGAL ALIENS have more rights than citizens of this country
Hmmm, maybe you should check my profile to see where I live before spewing out something like that. We deal with the effects of illegal immigration every day in my neck of the woods. Smugglers killing people and leaving bodies in the desert, illegals cutting through our back yard, depressed wages because of cheap illegal labor, traffic accidents with uninsured illegals who flee the scene, livestock butchered for food, houses broken into and vandalized. It ain't pretty.
-
As I said below... I freely and happily admit that I absolutely hate what the forces of socialism have done to America via the 14th amendment. But then, in my lexicon, hate is not nessarily a bad word. Some things deserve to be hated. People such as yourself, Ed, have completely destroyed the government that every single American soldier fought to defend from 1776 until 1945. Your side of the political debate has made a mockery of every single principle Americans fought and died and sacrificed for for nearly 200 years. You want us to be nothing more than another little european style social welfare state. I do so very much hate your version of what this country is supposed to be, and you hate mine. Where does that leave us?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I do so very much hate your version of what this country is supposed to be, and you hate mine. Where does that leave us?
The same place it left the federalists and anti-federalists 230 years ago. We muddle along as best we can and keep the country moving forward despite the whining of those on the opposing side.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Where does that leave us?
That, Stan, is the right question. There's no answer, least not one I can see. Escalation only ever ends one way.
Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
Escalation only ever ends one way.
It past the point of no return a long time ago.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I do so very much hate your version of what this country is supposed to be, and you hate mine. Where does that leave us?
The same place it left the federalists and anti-federalists 230 years ago. We muddle along as best we can and keep the country moving forward despite the whining of those on the opposing side.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
We muddle along as best we can and keep the country moving forward despite the whining of those on the opposing side.
That muddling along lasted about 80 years. The problem is that the left never gives in, it never compromises, it is an all or nothing philsophy. It is incapable of meeting anyone half way. It is like a python that relaxes its grip just long enough to squeeze a little tighter.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
jparken wrote:
It is for the Legislative Branch to create the laws and for the Executive Branch to enforce the laws.
And for the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws.
jparken wrote:
it's the liberals who always blame the US for all sorts of things, and frankly, we conservatives are sick and tired of liberals running down this country every chance they get
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
It's the conservatives who always blame the US. America is just fine the way it is, and we're sick and tired of conservatives running down his country. It's the way it is because WE THE PEOPLE CHOSE FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY. All we want is for conservatives to quit badmouthing respect for law and respect for human rights and dignity. Hundreds of millions of Americans support those values. Get over it.
yeah,why can't we all be good subjects and kow tow to the tyranny the way you do.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Escalation only ever ends one way.
It past the point of no return a long time ago.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
It past the point of no return a long time ago.
I happen to think so. That doesn't bode well. I know doomsaying isn't particularly popular, but I prefer to face reality than think we'll solve our problems "somehow."
Cheers, Patrick
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I have considered running for office simply BECAUSE I am so disillusioned
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
That, my friend, is the very best reason to run for office.
Seriously, I have no idea where to even start. It has been my experience that I can be a very moving speaker, but I seriously have no idea where to even begin. Merely registering as a candidate is easy; where does one get funding, media coverage, etc? Blah.
Cheers, Patrick
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
We muddle along as best we can and keep the country moving forward despite the whining of those on the opposing side.
That muddling along lasted about 80 years. The problem is that the left never gives in, it never compromises, it is an all or nothing philsophy. It is incapable of meeting anyone half way. It is like a python that relaxes its grip just long enough to squeeze a little tighter.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
That muddling along lasted about 80 years.
For those who don't realize, Stan is referring to the Civil War. Muddling along doesn't cut it. Real compromise and real commensurability must be achieved if we expect to avoid another one. Problem is, this time the divide isn't regional, isn't based in economics, and isn't limited to states. It's people, everywhere. We're talking anarchy if we don't figure out something. The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
Cheers, Patrick
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That muddling along lasted about 80 years.
For those who don't realize, Stan is referring to the Civil War. Muddling along doesn't cut it. Real compromise and real commensurability must be achieved if we expect to avoid another one. Problem is, this time the divide isn't regional, isn't based in economics, and isn't limited to states. It's people, everywhere. We're talking anarchy if we don't figure out something. The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
The "right" never gives in, either, at least if Bush and the majority of the current Republican party is any indication. It's a systemic problem not limited to political parties but a characteristic of people themselves.
That may be true of conservatives but certainly not of republicans. The republicans compromise on everything. Even when they have complete power to do what ever they please, the left still somehow finds a way to exert its will. Just look at how hard they fight over every last supreme court nominee. Those kinds of battles rarely happened in the past, and seldom happen when the president is a democrat. But, by God, let a conservative judge be nominated and its a battle to the death. If Bush had been a real leader, with a congress controlled by his own party, he would have effectively crushed the political opposition for as long as it took to complete his duties as commander in chief the way a Lincoln or an FDR would have. Bush's major problem is not his unwillingness to compromise, it is his unwillingness to bring the full constitutional authority and power of his office to bear.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about