CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

And yet you want to limit the power of the government so that it can't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We want those who are doing the best things for society to have the most control over our economy and free trade is how we give them that power.

Greed is not "doing the best things for society" and giving greedmongers the "most control over our economy" has been a complete and utter disaster for the majority of society.

when it is taken from us by force

What does that mean? Who is taking your money "by force"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

When you have one large faction of Americans who have no interest in discussing topics or considering solutions for problems, but rather focus almost entirely on accusing or blaming or hating other Americans, we could very well be screwed.

Ironic!

 

[Montrovant]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

And what is it that prompts some to focus on a word or a spelling or somebody's definition intead of the concept presented? I have in the past referred to that as it must be something in the water they drink, but I was advised that is not an acceptable metaphor to use.

I swear if some the folks actually WERE at a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of agreeing on revisions or additions to the Constitution we would never get around to discussing a single concept. All the time would be spent flinging ad hominem and personal insults at the bogeymen and women they seem to see in all directions and who they blame for all or most of the nation's problems - or - we would be eternally bogged down in what word, term, or phrase was acceptable to use to discuss the concepts.

The concepts themselves? Well that seems something the same folks seem totally blind to or unable to comprehend sufficiently to actually consider the pros and cons in any kind of open minded or objective manner.

That actually doesn't sound far off from some of the writings I've read about the original Constitutional Convention. There was supposedly a LOT of animosity between the various personalities and factions involved.

 

[dblack]

I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

And yet you want to limit the power of the government so that it can't.

Nope. Not true.

 

[dblack]

Greed is not "doing the best things for society" and giving greedmongers the "most control over our economy" has been a complete and utter disaster for the majority of society.

I wasn't talking about greed.

when it is taken from us by force

What does that mean? Who is taking your money "by force"?

It happens. You've never noticed?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

And yet you want to limit the power of the government so that it can't.

Nope. Not true.

When did you abandon your Liberatianism?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Greed is not "doing the best things for society" and giving greedmongers the "most control over our economy" has been a complete and utter disaster for the majority of society.

I wasn't talking about greed.

What you were describing was greed.

when it is taken from us by force

What does that mean? Who is taking your money "by force"?

It happens. You've never noticed?

Prove it.

 

[dblack]

I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

And yet you want to limit the power of the government so that it can't.

Nope. Not true.

When did you abandon your Liberatianism?

Shortly after you stopped beating your wife.

 

[dblack]

Greed is not "doing the best things for society" and giving greedmongers the "most control over our economy" has been a complete and utter disaster for the majority of society.

I wasn't talking about greed.

What you were describing was greed.

No, it wasn't. I was referring to people voluntarily giving their money to people who's service they appreciate. Greed is what leads people to do what you seem to think never happens: take from others by force.

when it is taken from us by force

What does that mean? Who is taking your money "by force"?

It happens. You've never noticed?

Prove it.

See above.

 

[Foxfyre]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

And what is it that prompts some to focus on a word or a spelling or somebody's definition intead of the concept presented? I have in the past referred to that as it must be something in the water they drink, but I was advised that is not an acceptable metaphor to use.

I swear if some the folks actually WERE at a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of agreeing on revisions or additions to the Constitution we would never get around to discussing a single concept. All the time would be spent flinging ad hominem and personal insults at the bogeymen and women they seem to see in all directions and who they blame for all or most of the nation's problems - or - we would be eternally bogged down in what word, term, or phrase was acceptable to use to discuss the concepts.

The concepts themselves? Well that seems something the same folks seem totally blind to or unable to comprehend sufficiently to actually consider the pros and cons in any kind of open minded or objective manner.

That actually doesn't sound far off from some of the writings I've read about the original Constitutional Convention. There was supposedly a LOT of animosity between the various personalities and factions involved.

No doubt some of the Founders did get into heated discussions because they didn't agree on every point. That is why it took eleven long years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the first Constituation of the United States. But one thing that is pretty much missing from the Founding documents is accusing, blaming, and insulting each other. They were able to focus on the concepts themselves and argue passionately for what they believed.

I very much envy them being able to do that without the childish food fights, sniping, innuendo, and mischaracterizations that makes up what usually passes for debate on message boards these days.

 

[Montrovant]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

And what is it that prompts some to focus on a word or a spelling or somebody's definition intead of the concept presented? I have in the past referred to that as it must be something in the water they drink, but I was advised that is not an acceptable metaphor to use.

I swear if some the folks actually WERE at a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of agreeing on revisions or additions to the Constitution we would never get around to discussing a single concept. All the time would be spent flinging ad hominem and personal insults at the bogeymen and women they seem to see in all directions and who they blame for all or most of the nation's problems - or - we would be eternally bogged down in what word, term, or phrase was acceptable to use to discuss the concepts.

The concepts themselves? Well that seems something the same folks seem totally blind to or unable to comprehend sufficiently to actually consider the pros and cons in any kind of open minded or objective manner.

That actually doesn't sound far off from some of the writings I've read about the original Constitutional Convention. There was supposedly a LOT of animosity between the various personalities and factions involved.

No doubt some of the Founders did get into heated discussions because they didn't agree on every point. That is why it took eleven long years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the first Constituation of the United States. But one thing that is pretty much missing from the Founding documents is accusing, blaming, and insulting each other. They were able to focus on the concepts themselves and argue passionately for what they believed.

I very much envy them being able to do that without the childish food fights, sniping, innuendo, and mischaracterizations that makes up what usually passes for debate on message boards these days.

Ah, but that's where I disagree. I think there was likely a lot of childish food fights, sniping, innuendo and mischaracterizations in the convention. The important difference is that they were, in the end, able to come to some sort of consensus. That rarely happens on a message board; then again, there is little in the way of consequence if a message board debate does not come to some sort of conclusion, whereas the founders needed to set up a government.

 

[Foxfyre]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

And what is it that prompts some to focus on a word or a spelling or somebody's definition intead of the concept presented? I have in the past referred to that as it must be something in the water they drink, but I was advised that is not an acceptable metaphor to use.

I swear if some the folks actually WERE at a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of agreeing on revisions or additions to the Constitution we would never get around to discussing a single concept. All the time would be spent flinging ad hominem and personal insults at the bogeymen and women they seem to see in all directions and who they blame for all or most of the nation's problems - or - we would be eternally bogged down in what word, term, or phrase was acceptable to use to discuss the concepts.

The concepts themselves? Well that seems something the same folks seem totally blind to or unable to comprehend sufficiently to actually consider the pros and cons in any kind of open minded or objective manner.

That actually doesn't sound far off from some of the writings I've read about the original Constitutional Convention. There was supposedly a LOT of animosity between the various personalities and factions involved.

No doubt some of the Founders did get into heated discussions because they didn't agree on every point. That is why it took eleven long years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the first Constituation of the United States. But one thing that is pretty much missing from the Founding documents is accusing, blaming, and insulting each other. They were able to focus on the concepts themselves and argue passionately for what they believed.

I very much envy them being able to do that without the childish food fights, sniping, innuendo, and mischaracterizations that makes up what usually passes for debate on message boards these days.

Ah, but that's where I disagree. I think there was likely a lot of childish food fights, sniping, innuendo and mischaracterizations in the convention. The important difference is that they were, in the end, able to come to some sort of consensus. That rarely happens on a message board; then again, there is little in the way of consequence if a message board debate does not come to some sort of conclusion, whereas the founders needed to set up a government.

Maybe there was more than is obvious in the history, but I believe I have read ALL the founding documents, the letters, the transcripts, and a whole bunch of the histories and I just don't see it. Even Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who detested each other politically and worked behind each other's backs to undermine each other when there was sharp disagreement, did not engage in petty sniping and schoolyard insults, and they did not misrepresent each other's position for their own political gain. (They were still close friends at the signing of the Constitution however.)

But despite some sharp differences in point of view throughout the process and in the early years of the new Union, they all seemed to be able to conduct themselves as grown ups in spite of their differences. And I envy them that.

 

[dblack]

Really, dblack, you really want to run with that simplicity that falls apart even upon the slightest scrutiny?

.
Do your worst.

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

Do you mean that is the way it is now? Or that is the way it is without so much government manipulation? Because I certainly often don't want the wealth distributed the way the federal government sometimes distributes it. And I do count myself as one of 'we the people'.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm still wondering what 'scrutiny' you have in mind. Apart from offhand slurs, I've not seen any.

I find I have given you enough hints and counter-arguments to think through your own proposals. You may ignore most of my work, of course, but then you don't get to request more of it.

Well, nevermind then. I think I've presented a perspective on economic freedom that a lot of people fail to appreciate. Unless there's external coercion going on, wealth is distributed the way we, the people, want it to be distributed. That doesn't fall apart under scrutiny. It's an undeniable fact.

I would suppose that depends on what one considers to be external coercion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

And yet you want to limit the power of the government so that it can't.

Nope. Not true.

When did you abandon your Liberatianism?

Shortly after you stopped beating your wife.

Thank you for admitting that you are incapable of supporting your Libertarian Utopia.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Greed is not "doing the best things for society" and giving greedmongers the "most control over our economy" has been a complete and utter disaster for the majority of society.

I wasn't talking about greed.

What you were describing was greed.

No, it wasn't. I was referring to people voluntarily giving their money to people who's service they appreciate. Greed is what leads people to do what you seem to think never happens: take from others by force.

when it is taken from us by force

What does that mean? Who is taking your money "by force"?

It happens. You've never noticed?

Prove it.

See above.

That was an amazing display of cognitive dissonance on your part.