Why Do You Believe What You Believe?

SmarterthanYou said:
it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would publicize the new 'limited' government to the people who ratified the constitution, then slip a single clause in it that grants that government nearly unlimited potential. it makes you a moronic fuckstick authoritarian who should join the GOP/
Click to expand...

I think you're a fuckstick for thinking they wouldn't do that.
 
Evmetro said:
I believe what I believe because of what information, media, and how I was socialized. No matter if it is politics, something mechanical, philosophy, or whatever, the more different perspectives and information about the subject, the better I can triangulate the most likely truth. In politics specifically, we can't really know the truth, so the best we can do is to triangulate the "most likely" truth from a whole lot of non trustworthy sources. If one refuses to consume political agenda, propaganda, and news from the opposing side, one becomes ignorant by default. For this reason, I consume ALL media, news, and propaganda, regardless of the political bias. I don't trust any of it, but I consume it all. Anyway, I believe what I do politically because of the broad menu of media that I consume. I can sit back and watch my favorite cheerleader Hannity as he satisfies my confirmation bias, and then flip right over to Rachael Maddow.
Click to expand...

Good answer.
 
Norah said:
I'd be lying if I said that many of my beliefs arent things that my parents believe and were taught to me and also that most of my closest friends weren't raised similarly. It's hard not to absorb beliefs that your parents have and that your friends have, especially in small towns. Faith, friends, and family all shape beliefs in my opinion. My interest in the constitution and the more conservative/libertarian point of view became an interest to me when Obama was running for reelection and it's just grown on me through college so far to where it just clicks to me. I don't think I can point to any one thing though that made me believe what I believe though. I was raised to be as self sufficient as possible, to not make excuses, to have a good work ethic, and to trust in Christ. If I'm the result of that stuff then I guess that's why.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that at all. especially since you're an adult now and still agree. There's a reason for that.
 
domer76 said:
I believe what I believe based on my life experiences and examination of the issues rather than a political ideology. I do my homework on whatever issue is at hand.

Given that, my views generally come down on the left side of center. That's probably because I despise greed as much as anything and the right typically embraces profit at the expense of everything else.
Click to expand...

I'm calling bullshit.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
In the interest of following the OP, the reasons I believe what I believe are...

Up until 1997, I never gave much thought to politics because I was born and raised in Podunk Illinois, population 3,000. So we basically did what we wanted to, so long as we didn't intrude upon our neighbors, or when we wanted to go outside of our own little domain/property, we courteously asked for permission to do so. When the federal government besieged the koresh compound, subsequently immolating 80 American Citizens, I became anti big government (not really caring much about differences between liberal or conservative at that point). Then 9/11 happened and the PATRIOT ACT was forced upon us, all in the name of the war on terror. Since I was adamantly against the infringement on our freedom during a republican administration, I was branded a liberal. I said whatever, then i'm a liberal. Then Obama happened and a democrat majority continued to not only enforce the current policy of rights infringement, they proceeded to increase the pressure and oppression. But in the mass majority idiocy displayed by mainstream americans, I became a conservative because I didn't support Obama. So I said 'whatever, then i'm conservative'. But in those 24 years of continual whittling away at the constitution by either major party, I was acquainted with Libertarian-ism and it's core belief of freedom without infringing on the freedom of others. So I read the constitution, bill of rights, convention minutes, and most of the published commentaries leading up to ratification. Coming to the conclusion that nearly all liberals and nearly all conservatives are hugely resentful of the constitution and the rights that the founders believed we had simply for existing, I knew I was a Libertarian. Since then, my major objective has been to point out how totalitarian both the major parties, and it's core constituency, are.
Click to expand...

You do realize Koresh was barbecued before 1997 right?
 
iolo said:
Many of the posts here are from people whose messages I don't see, so I hope I am not way off beam when I go by the words on the top and say that I believe what I believe because it fits in with the experience of my People and my family, as interpreted by a fairly sceptical and educated intelligence in my own generation.
Click to expand...

You're post number 7. If you can't see them that's on you, not them...sheep fucker.
 
iolo said:
i.e. colonialism stinks, and amounts to large-scale theft; capitalism stinks and amounts to large-scale theft and mass-murder; newspapers are controlled by criminals and tell lies automatically, pushing people to choose fuhrers and work against their own interests: the modern social-type media is vulnerable to powerful liars all the time; people's experience takes time to catch up with reality, especially when power-people deliberately distort it: the vast majority of mugs are brainwashed and bleat like sheep rather than talking like humans.
Click to expand...

You're fun to read.
 
Guille said:
No they're not.
Click to expand...

It's job is to prevent this whole shitshow from collapsing into itself. Therefore, it's job is to achieve budgets in the black. Every now and again you might wind-up waging WWII or trying to bankrupt the USSR, which is where the government obviously deviates from the business world.
 
Chlorate said:
It's job is to prevent this whole shitshow from collapsing into itself. Therefore, it's job is to achieve budgets in the black. Every now and again you might wind-up waging WWII or trying to bankrupt the USSR, which is where the government obviously deviates from the business world.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Constitution obligates the feds to operate in the black.
 
Guille said:
Nothing in the Constitution obligates the feds to operate in the black.
Click to expand...

We should probably bring back discussion about the Balanced Budget Amendment, but, I also didn't say that there was. There is a moral obligation on he part of government to not cause this country to collapse, if for no other reason then that it's bad manners. Also, the relationship between the governed and the government has been referred to as a "social contract."
 
Guille said:
Madison actually didn't get around to answering the question.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I'm not sure how he could have been more explicit. Federalist 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Click to expand...

Then he goes on, to the point of mocking those who attempt to bastardize plain language to suit their agenda of unlimited power.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top