Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?

Try responding to the points made in said "lecture" instead of objecting to the fact that someone is lecturing back at you.
After all, the whole coin of the realm in a political debate forum is lecturing. One delivers a lecture, which is an educational talk to an audience, to support one's points, one's arguments.

So now you, after lecturing voluminously on Madison, object to the coin of the realm in a debate forum, and now you "have little or no reason to believe anything you (NW Ponderer) says?

Since when did that become a valid debate tactic?
That's just saying "I don't like the way you talk so I'm taking my ball and going home."

Could you be any more obnoxious or condescending? You are not my freaking parent and you are not as smart as you think you are! So quit being so obnoxious and condescending. Your smug conceited attitude is real pain in the arse and a definite impediment to a discussion with you.

What is the source of my quotes?

I know that Madison's views changed over time. Everyone's does. My quotes of his are chosen because when he said them they back up the point I am making.
No, you are not. In your own mind you might be but that is the only you are! The purpose of our Constitution was to create a limited government as the quote from Madison said. (Where did he say it and when?) Of course our Constitution does not directly say "but the government can only be so big." I never said it did. As a structure for our government our Constitution does limit the size of it. Our Constitution is like a house. Just as a house limits a person's movement our Constitution limits the movement of our government. The X Amendment and that the powers of our government are given to it by the people of the country are limitations on the supremacy clause. The supremacy clause was not the central issue of the Civil War. It was a contributing issue to the Civil War but it was not the central issue.
Your assumption that I am ignoring the changes to our government after the Civil War is erroneous to say the least. Asinine to say the worst. But then that is what one is to expect from a "know it all." My desire to reduce the size of our government has not a goddamn thing to do with the "Lost Cause." The shift to a larger and more powerful central government might have been started shortly after the Civil War but the real growth of it occurred when the so called Progressive movement took control of our government during the administration of Woodrow Wilson*, he was a supporter of the "Lost Cause" whose favorite movie was The Birth of a Nation. A movie whose heroes were members of the KKK. The growth of our federal government, at the expense of the states, greatly increased during FDR's administration and the New Deal. A basic premise of the "Lost Cause" was the egregiously mistaken understanding of states rights. States rights do not trump human rights, especially the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That you conflate my conservatism with the "conservatism of those who wanted to perpetuate slavery or failing that keep blacks as second class citizens is an insult. Had you said that to me in person, back when I was drinking, it would have difficult for me to not punch you in the face! That you make such a stupid, asinine, and insulting comment is proof positive that you nowhere near as smart as you think you are. Then you compound the insult by suggesting that I am living in the past.
* Woodrow Wilson Godfather of Liberalism

So, now that you know what smug and condescending looks like, will you stop applying it to everything you disagree with? Or do I have to keep my bucket handy?

You are the only one I have applied it to. The comment about the bucket is a big reason I say it about you.

Setting the bucket down... [When you asked "Could you be any more obnoxious or condescending?" I assure you, I can. I was the youngest of six (not counting my twin). Verbal jousting was the coin of that realm.] A Truce.

I ask, my friend, that you read carefully what is written. I recognize you have your back up because you feel surrounded by ... what? Let's just say, "less-conservatives". It gives one a feeling of persecution. But, please focus on the argument. That's all I'm asking.

I tend to use words carefully. We could have a really good discussion of the roots of the Civil War, or the basis for various elements of the Constitution, if we assume good faith.

I don't. I toss them around like cordwood.

I don't imagine we will ever escape the tyranny of capitalism. Because, by nature, humans are capitalists. Traders and investors by our very nature. Out to make a profit, an easy buck, and if you get lucky once in a while...a killing! Evolution(or god) made us hoarders and made us greedy. Because survival.

I don't know why we struggle so hard to find any common ground.

Would a living wage make us more socialist? Workers have a product to sell and an overhead to meet too. Shareholders at home that need a slice of the pie. We're all capitalists here after all.

Subsidized healthcare? Medicare is a state program that works with federal assistance. A no-brainer for them that wants it de-centralized. The ACA keeps pretty much everything private, but it spreads out the costs a little better. We're slowly zeroing in on an equitable healthcare system. We aren't becoming "socialist" because of it.

Subsidized education. I'd like to see huge investments into education because the un-educated fall farther and farther behind every year.

I just don't rightly see any of that as being "socialist" in the least.

To have a good discussion an apology for even thinking that my conservatism is in any way similar to the southern Democrat conservatives who wanted to bring back slavery or supported segregation. I have a website 272-words.com. The name of the website comes from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which is 272 words long. Someone who is a Lincoln fan like I am would not be a southern Democrat Conservative or a supporter of segregation. Those southern Democrat conservatives were very helpful in getting FDR's New Deal programs passed by Congress. That leaves the very odious stain of segregation on the New Deal.

I wish that were true.

Okay, I probably did say that to some other people here on the Rant. But to me your comments were the most condescending. If you were as smart as you are condescending you would be the smartest man in the world.

Okay, that's a start. Please explain how your conservatism is different.

I am a huge Lincoln fan, too. He was the first good Republican, but not the last. But they have become awfully rare...

Go back, again, and read the sentences you are responding to critically. I didn't say you were an unreformed segregationist, or anything like that. What I said was The paths are parallel. I explicitly did not say they were the same thing.

My point, really, is that the United States before, and after, the Civil War was and is a very different country than at the time of its founding. The "Lost Cause" mythology pretends that the war was about "states' rights", rather than slavery, to give it a "noble" feel. Adherents spend a good deal of time selectively quoting (anti-federalist) founders about how the central government is "limited" and real power remains with the individual States - when that has not been the case since 1790, or 1800 (consider the Louisiana purchase), or 1812, or 1846, or 1860... but that reality was made explicit with the 13th-15th Amendments. So, the desire to "go back" to the "good old days" is based upon something that never really existed.

It is that yearning for a past that doesn't exist that creates what I consider the parallels between the "lost cause" and "libertarian"/"conservative" arguments. The labels are particularly instructive - preferring "constitutional republic" to "representative democracy", as if they were different things; identifying as "classical liberal" instead of "conservative". As is the argumentation - pretending that "the founders" were not motivated to create a strong central government, while ignoring the Supremacy clause and its implications (and all of the federalists among the founders); arguing that a "small government" was their goal, but ignoring the growth of the government from its inception. Federal Government Growth Before the New Deal (Foundation for Economic Education). The nation's population is 100 times what it was in 1790 and the land mass has more than tripled. How small a government can regulate such a situation?