The World to Come

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Striped Horse, Jan 29, 2019.

  1. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Being honest Eleuthera I do not know the American Constitution by heart with its seven articles and its twenty seven amendments.

    Here was my process of dealing with your post (which I apply to 99% of the stuff on here). I approached your question with a question of my own: "is this a serious challenge to a serious question which if I engaged in a little research and entered into the discussion would teach me something?".

    If the answer to that question is "no" then I would probably conclude that this is only a rhetorical question designed to further the US culture war to the benefit of one side or another. It could be a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

    Nearly every time I ask this question I conclude that it's all about culture wars and therefore a crude and unnuanced argument where facts, logic, reason and judgement are all made subservient to a crude cowboys and injuns worldview that is pretty useless for anything other than bashing a lot of people whose values you despise. It's fun for a while but I do feel sorry for the people who spend all their waking hours here...they really do need to get a life.

    Now when I see your question above I am not sure what category it falls into. Is it asked in good faith or is it a rhetorical device? The original question was this:

    So my process is to assess very quickly whether this is a serious question about the US Constitution or just some hobby horse for a culture warrior. So I interpret regime change as most of the wars that the United States is involved in and also any diplomatic or economic activity which is also designed to achieve regime change (i.e. sanctions).

    I am aware that American Presidents of all parties habitually engage in warfare without congressional approval and that this leads to partisan objection (i.e. who objects depends on who is the President).

    So it looks like one of these points on the surface.

    It could also be an "against most wars" point of view from someone who consistently opposes all wars and believe that the whole political class since the second world war has been criminally liable. But again, that is a side issue as the world we live in is not like such a poster would have it. I am aware that such challenges have been defeated in the Courts, which to me is something set up by the Constitution to ensure the balance of powers. So to me it is not central to the subject - it is a theoretical procedural point where the poster could be on a hobby horse.

    I also draw a distinction between supporting a particular player in Venezuela and supporting my own or any other country in declaring war or undertaking military action in pursuit of that objective. So your premise was wholly false anyway as I am not supporting any kind of military action and I do consider that any executive in any country (including the USA) is entitled to pursue diplomatic and non military means to achieve foreign policy objectives.

    If you are asking where this non-warfare kind of regime change is in the Constitution (this could also be "regime change" - you were not specific that it required military action) then we are again in culture war territory as such a question would to me represent an extreme isolationist perspective and a preposterous conclusion. So debating the Constitution for this end would be like medieval clerics debating how many angels could be gathered on the head of a pin.

    Again though I am guessing. Your question was crude and blunt and could be interpreted many ways.

    So now I'm down to "is this a left wing pacifist culture war" challenge or "is it an American First no foreign entanglements" isolationist. Or the new variant of a combination of the two? Is it someone from the Right who uses pedantry and wholly twisted sophistry about the Constitution to gut its meaning and render it a document for eighteenth century farmers, or is it someone from the Left who is trying to catch our anyone they perceive they disagree with by nailing them with the Constitution (a bit like an atheist might nail a Christian bigot with a scriptural quote)?

    Whatever...these are all culture warrior positions...and they derail any discussion about what should now happen in Venezuela.

    But to repeat - I do not think it is justified to engage in military action against Venezuela right now (by any country, constitution or not) and believe that the circumstances that would justify this would have to be far, far more grave than they are at present. So when I see your reply, which tries to open a debate about Venezuela and turn it into a debate about the whole constitutional issue of how a war by the US should be authorised, I detect a culture war as I said above. It may be a wrong decision but I judged that like 99% of posts on here it is likely that you are not really interested in the American Constitution as much as furthering your own side's battle cry. The American Constitution - one of the great milestones of humanity's progress, like the Magna Carta before it - is seldom debated on here with the respect it deserves. It is used to trash the other side with sophistry.

    The prime questions about justification of war (which I am not seeking to do by the way but we could have a hypothetical discussion as to what circumstances are justified) are not procedural. If we were to debate whether certain members of certain executives were acting legally or legally, that may be a fair point. But the discussion was now whether something was justified or not (and I didn't justify any kind of invasion at present), not on the means of achieving it.

    The other part of your post which shouted "culture warrior" was your haste to move to ad hominem attacks on my "knowledge" of something, a conclusion that you cannot possibly reach with the little interaction with me as you have had. This too signified a desire to score a cheap point rather than to enter into a meaningful discussion.

    As I said, these are all judgment calls that could be wrong. If you want to be serious I am still up for it. I can do polemic and culture war too - although I am in a "culture" tribe all on my own usually. One point where I started to reflect following your post was on the Venezuelan Constitution - which I had very little knowledge of. My point on this is much harder to justify. Under this constitution it is very arguable that Maduro has not been legitimately deposed. And in that case the actions of the USA, EU etc are wrong. This Constitution was backed by 72% of the Venezuelan people in 2010. This is more the central point - not the US Constitution.

    My view here is that under Maduro democratic processes were seriously flawed by the marginalisation and persecution of opposition voices. The overwhelming monopolization of state media by the government is also a factor that demonstrates when elected officials become tyrants. Although it does not make the government of Venezuela total illegitimate, my view is it does seriously delegitimise constitutional changes made in such an environment. For me - my values - are that all proportional actions to protect democracy are justified. Everything, including constitutions, are subservient to that. I would argue that I have the founding Fathers with me on that too but that's another debate.

    On this basis - and there is some basis even in the Venezuelan Constitution for this - I do now judge that the corruption and incompetence of the Maduro regime is now strong enough to justify his removal by other, all democratically elected, parts of the Venezuelan State to organise new elections. If this is supported by non-military means by nations with free and open societies, that can only be a good thing.

    There... I paid you the respect of a long reply. I wonder how you will reciprocate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  2. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ???
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  3. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are getting yourself worked into a lather. Maybe blocking me will give you relief from what ails you.
     
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Holy Cow, you DO work for the Ministry of Propaganda.

    Yes, yes, the democratic process is valid only in the US. Others are imposters. LOL
     
    alexa likes this.
  5. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fun watchin em run circles around themselves
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  6. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ?????Well, there was the First Bank of the US from 1791 -1811. The 2nd Bank of the US from 1816-1836. There was a period from 1837-1862 when there was no National Bank, which meant there were only the many different State Banks. Average lifespan for a bank was about 5 years, half of them failed. And then 1863-1913 we had the many National Banks.
     
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I don't expect much other than a steady stream of BS from you.
     
  8. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't say it wasn't valid. He said the people who voted for what they got, are responsible for what they got.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My question to you was both an honest question and a rhetorical device.

    If you do not know that part of the document that authorizes the government to overthrow legitimately elected governments around the world, I'm not surprised because THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORIZATION in the document. And that is the goal of the rhetoric--to have you realize there is no authorization for the federal government to overthrow others. Plain and simple.

    Thus our efforts against Venezuela and 55 other countries around the world are illegal, and often result in military aggression, a crime under treaties to which we are signatory.
     
    alexa likes this.
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True, just as we in the US have the government we deserve. We agree.

    The real issue is the US role in overthrowing legitimate though imperfect governments.
     
  11. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are correct... a simple review of history tells us what you have related here.

    I wasn't saying that there hadn't been 'central banks' in the U. S. before the Fed. I said I'm not certain what liberal, "progressive" Democrats thought they were really doing when they brought a central bank like the Federal Reserve System into existence in 1913. If it was to create great stability, security, and reliability in the economy, then they failed.

    Less than 20 years after the Fed was launced, we had The Great Depression. Also, interestingly, less than 20 years after the Fed was created, Frankie Roosevelt made the possession of gold by American citizens illegal! And, no, I don't advocate returning to "the gold standard" in this country, but, as I said, it's been 'boom-bust' ever since -- and the invention of the Federal Reserve System didn't actually do anything but concentrate immense power in its hands... including the ability to regulate the money supply to suit itself! Obviously, it was necessary for the Fed to get gold out of the way during the Great Depression -- because the Fed couldn't control it!

    But for those interested in the history, per se, here's a more-or-less useful link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  12. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't worry. I'm a nice guy. I won't hold it against you if you put me on "ignore" status and I'll still send you a Christmas card every year. :couple_inlove:
     
    alexa likes this.
  13. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :razz:

    :steamed:
     
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chavez ruled until he died. Maduro is still there. What is happening now isn't of our creation.
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correcting the BS is my favorite thing to do here.
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every foreign war weve ever waged has been illegal under that theory.
     
  17. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The situation in Venezuela today is the direct result of American manipulation & treachery.
    Don't be such a sore loser.
     
  18. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since the end of WW II yes.
     
  19. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You really believe that?
     
    Thingamabob likes this.
  20. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think he's just upset about America's fall from grace and hasn't been keeping up with the news since the war with Korea.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    alexa likes this.
  21. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most European countries support religious schools with taxpayer funding as they realize that they are fulfilling taxpayer needs, something the USA does not acknowledge.Parents who send their children to religious schools here, still have to pay normal real estate taxes supporting public schools, in addition to paying tuition to support the religious school their child attends.
     
  22. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think that what you are saying about the US is good simply because it encourages people to send their children to a non religious school. If all children are educated together they tend to find it easier to get on with people who are different to them when adults.
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where in the Constitution is there an authority to wage a foreign war? Cant be found.
     
  24. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Do you really believe otherwise? I'll assume you don't disagree that Chavez ruled until he died and that Maduro is still there, so is must be the present that you dispute. Whats your evidence?
     
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "manipulation & treachery". Bet that is the most detail you can provide. Was that from a Maduro speech?
     

Share This Page