What does America stand for? and what makes an American Patriot?

[Kosh]

This thread started by a far left drone, shows that the far left hates America. Just like their protected group of ISIS!

 

[frigidweirdo]

You say all this, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you say it based on government for the rich. The Founders didn't necessarily intend for the situation to become like this. Yes, the rich controlled politics way back when, but then the masses didn't have an education. They put in place things for the people to be able to change the Constitution to make it fit the times, this hasn't been done.

I'm not talking about government providing everything, I'm talking about THE PEOPLE being in control of their own country.

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

The problem right now is there is a constitutional amendment process, but the people who control the govt don't want to change the system and they control the thought processes of millions of Americans, so it'll never happen. So the only thing that will happen is the US goes downhill because the govt is incapable of doing anything worthwhile.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It’s really not at all hard to do

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”..

Provide and promote are two clearly different chosen words.

Indeed. How unfortunate for you that the constitution gives congress the authority to collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the country.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the role to provide welfare, but it’s interesting how we have a “commerce clause” that provides the structure for promoting goods and services between the states . Promoting the general welfare, and providing a welfare system and Health Care, are two totally different things.

Again, Hamilton (the quote you overlooked) believed in a two government system so
“If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by EITHER (that means Federal or State Government by the way), they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,”

A government system that sees the collective needs of all within its countries boundary, as opposed to the need of a State / Federal hierarchical government, is known as a national system of government NOT the Constitutional system our Founders established.

Understand the difference.

You think there's a difference. The problem is that the Constitution can be interpreted, especially when it's so vague.

"general welfare" is as vague as it comes. The federal govt has the power to raise taxes for the general welfare, if they have the taxing power they can also assume they have the legislative power to make laws based on welfare too.

The clear list of how the federal government would handle the military, coin money, and with regards to the post office which wasn’t vague. They also made clear what the duty of the federal government would be as well as what was the responsibility of the state.

"general welfare" means what exactly? Is it not vague?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I never said it’s based on government for the rich. Rather I was stating the view of individual opportunity, liberty to choose your own prosperity based on success that learns from failure. I’m speaking the Founders written views that’s based on the individual pursuit of happiness, not the government provision of. The Founders wrote about individual rights, individual liberty, individual pursuits, not a government providing for the collective interest of all. That kind of collective provision is not to be found among the writings of the Founders, when it came to the establishment of this country. Oh, and yes the colonies did believe in an education system for their children in becoming productive members of society, not welfare recipients.

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

The problem right now is there is a constitutional amendment process, but the people who control the govt don't want to change the system and they control the thought processes of millions of Americans, so it'll never happen. So the only thing that will happen is the US goes downhill because the govt is incapable of doing anything worthwhile.

There is a reason why they established an amendment process which entailed the expressed views of the majority of the states. How do you think women’s rights was handled? Constitutionally, as directed by the Founders.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is that the Founders made a Federal Govt. This is the collective.

You have to remember that there were Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the former were more likely to want communal solutions to problems. Yes, they wanted to promote the individual too, but not at the expense of no community action.

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

The problem right now is there is a constitutional amendment process, but the people who control the govt don't want to change the system and they control the thought processes of millions of Americans, so it'll never happen. So the only thing that will happen is the US goes downhill because the govt is incapable of doing anything worthwhile.

There is a reason why they established an amendment process which entailed the expressed views of the majority of the states. How do you think women’s rights was handled? Constitutionally, as directed by the Founders.

Well, having an amendment process which is drawn out and requires consensus is good when you have a system which allows for opinions. However the US has lost all opinions and now just goes for manufactured views. Anything which is actually something people would normally think is important, has been taken over by secondary issues which define two over grown and cumbersome parties which are unwilling to let people have a real choice.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

During the time of the colonial states, there was. need for a nationali form of government to oversee the interests of all. The European nations each have a nationalized form of government to oversee their territory of an entire nation, however that’s not what the Founders settles with in drafting the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed and wrote in the Federalist papers a Federalism
hierarchical system of two governments sharing the same geographical area. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” led the way to establishing a system derived on the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments. Article I Section 8 outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Federal Government. Article X outlines the allowances and responsibilities given to the states. Under these provisions the federal government has the ability to coin currency (not allowed to the individual states under Article X), the provision and funding of the narion’s military, to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; to establish Post Offices and POST Roads, to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (no mention of funding education), as well as the commerce clause which surrounds the sale and services that are to be conducted BETWEEN THE STATES. Likewise the states are given responsibilities for their allotted territories under Article X. state governments have the power to regulate issues of local concern, such as drivers’ licenses, public school policy, and levy taxes in support of the individual state’s needs.

A federal welfare system is not a role given to the United States Government, neither is national Health Care nor Federal infrustraucture (which the states are given to maintain within their respective territory). The idea that the Federal Government NEEDS to perform the duty of providing for the collective good, as we have from among the European countries, are what we would find under a “national government” system that’s not the desire nor intent of the Founders in establishing the Constitution to govern our nation.

What progressives seek, in greater Federal government power overseeing the collective whole is a national system dictating its role over the boundary of a nation, NOT one that’s a dual government divided system of State and Federal roles clearly specified under the United States Constitution.

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

The problem right now is there is a constitutional amendment process, but the people who control the govt don't want to change the system and they control the thought processes of millions of Americans, so it'll never happen. So the only thing that will happen is the US goes downhill because the govt is incapable of doing anything worthwhile.

There is a reason why they established an amendment process which entailed the expressed views of the majority of the states. How do you think women’s rights was handled? Constitutionally, as directed by the Founders.

Well, having an amendment process which is drawn out and requires consensus is good when you have a system which allows for opinions. However the US has lost all opinions and now just goes for manufactured views. Anything which is actually something people would normally think is important, has been taken over by secondary issues which define two over grown and cumbersome parties which are unwilling to let people have a real choice.

So because you can’t find support for your ideological issues that you feel the Federal Government should take care of, but aren’t allowed or directed to by our Constitution, you think the whole system as it was designed to be governed is unfair? Checks and balances, as well as a voice of the people through 2/3 of the states should not be a problem if it’s INDEED an issue all Americans share an interest in ... and would like to see from their Federal government. Regardless, I for one support the system of government we have in place. Our Founders intended a system of government where the people’s rights can’t be invaded by either state or federal government, but allows a course for readdress. Balance of power is the best check’s and balance system we could hope to have to preserve the individual’s rights.

Remember what ever ideological view of government you happen to support, that pendulum swings both ways. I’m sure you would like a course for readdress over a Federal Government issue you don’t happen to agree with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand what happened 200 odd years ago. But things have changed massively. They didn't want the Presidential elections turning into a popularity contest, it's a popularity contest, they didn't want a lot of things that are. The problem is that in 200 years the system has become outdated and the US needs to decide which way it wants to actually go and decide the best way of getting there, or see it encumbered with a system that is weighing the US down massively.

If you want to change the Constitution and how things are done, there is an amendment process that’s clearly outlined to change it. I happen to think social security is outdated from how it was originally funded and intended, I’m sure you don’t want a debate to see which way that plan ought to go. We have a clear Constitutional process to make changes, you just don’t change the rules simply because you don’t like how the system was set up by the orchestrators who wrote the United States Constitution.

The problem right now is there is a constitutional amendment process, but the people who control the govt don't want to change the system and they control the thought processes of millions of Americans, so it'll never happen. So the only thing that will happen is the US goes downhill because the govt is incapable of doing anything worthwhile.

There is a reason why they established an amendment process which entailed the expressed views of the majority of the states. How do you think women’s rights was handled? Constitutionally, as directed by the Founders.

Well, having an amendment process which is drawn out and requires consensus is good when you have a system which allows for opinions. However the US has lost all opinions and now just goes for manufactured views. Anything which is actually something people would normally think is important, has been taken over by secondary issues which define two over grown and cumbersome parties which are unwilling to let people have a real choice.

So because you can’t find support for your ideological issues that you feel the Federal Government should take care of, but aren’t allowed or directed to by our Constitution, you think the whole system as it was designed to be governed is unfair? Checks and balances, as well as a voice of the people through 2/3 of the states should not be a problem if it’s INDEED an issue all Americans share an interest in ... and would like to see from their Federal government. Regardless, I for one support the system of government we have in place. Our Founders intended a system of government where the people’s rights can’t be invaded by either state or federal government, but allows a course for readdress. Balance of power is the best check’s and balance system we could hope to have to preserve the individual’s rights.

Remember what ever ideological view of government you happen to support, that pendulum swings both ways. I’m sure you would like a course for readdress over a Federal Government issue you don’t happen to agree with.

Actually my "ideological issues" are that the government should represent the people. That people should have choice when they go to the polls. That the issues the impact the people should be the issues that politicians fight over, not the issues they want.

If you don't like my "ideology" then I feel sorry for you.

The system is unfair because..... well I can explain quite easily.

Firstly, in a Presidential election the politicians spend loads of money in only 12 states.

A Campaign Map, Morphed By Money

Here's a little map, to get it bigger you can click on the site.

Why, in a country of 50 states, do only 12 states get the attention of the politicians? Well, it's simple, because the other states will elect one party or the other without even thinking.

Go to Germany where they have a system which has both FPTP and PR at the same time and you see 10% of people changing their votes. FPTP is negative voting. You vote for the person who will stop the other person from getting in, hence why the US only has two viable parties.

In 2013 the SPD gained 12.8 million FPTP votes but only 11.2 million PR votes. 1.6 million people voted for smaller parties when they had the chance to vote positively.

This last election in September the same thing. The SPD got 11.4 million votes with FPTP and 9.5 million with PR. The same for the ruling CDU/CSU party.

The smaller parties do well with PR. The FDP gained ZERO seats with FPTP, meaning they could not beat a single person in a direct winner takes all system. They simply don't have that much support in any one area. However with PR they gained 80 seats. 5 million people voted for them.

So under a US system, 5 million people would have wanted this party to represent them in government, and they would have got ZERO representation.

Is that FAIR? Is it? Seriously?

Die Linke (The Left) gained 5 FPTP seats but 64 PR seats. How is it fair that 9.2% of the people wanted this party to represent them, and yet they would have got 5 seats out of 709? Do you think this is fair?

The CSU (they're the Bavarian part of the CDU party) got 46 Constituency votes. Yet only had 7% of the constituency vote. Now, the system added more seats to PR system because the CSU gained so many seats with FPTP, basically they'd have got 46 seats out of 299 seats with FPTP, which essentially means they'd have got 15% of the seats with 7% of the vote. How is that fair?

In the US people don't have a choice because they are presented with a NEGATIVE system which promotes the main two parties, as it does in Germany when they vote FPTP. But Germany gives another choice, and with that choice 10% of people change their votes.