On America

The place for general political discussion.

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:20 pm

I think he means a "big picture book" kind of guy.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: On America

Postby spacemonkey » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:27 pm

exploited wrote:I think he means a "big picture book" kind of guy.

Well said from the guy that is baffled by a single pixel. But you do try, so some credit is due for effort I suppose.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: On America

Postby NAB » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:29 pm

spacemonkey wrote:
exploited wrote:I think he means a "big picture book" kind of guy.

Well said from the guy that is baffled by a single pixel. But you do try, so some credit is due for effort I suppose.


Goddamn that sentence structure is baffling.
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: On America

Postby spacemonkey » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:30 pm

NAB wrote:
spacemonkey wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:How does that relate to the present topic of federalism?

You literally just regurgitate whatever the last headline you saw on Breitbart was, don't you? Lmao it's like a poorly designed machine.

Its all part of the big picture. But when you constantly focus on only a few pixels, the big picture is never seen.


It's cute and almost endearing that you think you're a big picture kind of guy. Bless your heart.

If your willing to come out of your safe space, you could probably see it too.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: On America

Postby spacemonkey » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:32 pm

NAB wrote:
spacemonkey wrote:
exploited wrote:I think he means a "big picture book" kind of guy.

Well said from the guy that is baffled by a single pixel. But you do try, so some credit is due for effort I suppose.


Goddamn that sentence structure is baffling.

You being baffled is not a new revelation.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: On America

Postby NAB » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:32 pm

spacemonkey wrote:
NAB wrote:
spacemonkey wrote:
ToddStarnes wrote:How does that relate to the present topic of federalism?

You literally just regurgitate whatever the last headline you saw on Breitbart was, don't you? Lmao it's like a poorly designed machine.

Its all part of the big picture. But when you constantly focus on only a few pixels, the big picture is never seen.


It's cute and almost endearing that you think you're a big picture kind of guy. Bless your heart.

If your willing to come out of your safe space, you could probably see it too.


Image
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: On America

Postby spacemonkey » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:41 pm

OK, I apologize for bulling you guy's, but y'all make it so easy. I may not agree with much you may say, but would stand with anyone of you defending your right to say it. To bad they couldn't figure that out in Charlottesville.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4832
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: On America

Postby NAB » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:47 pm

spacemonkey wrote:OK, I apologize for bulling you guy's, but y'all make it so easy. I may not agree with much you may say, but would stand with anyone of you defending your right to say it. To bad they couldn't figure that out in Charlottesville.


Did you mean bullying? Do you actually think you're bullying us with these posts? :))
Welcome to our speak board web page
User avatar
NAB
Governor
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 1080 times

Re: On America

Postby Saz » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:33 pm

exploited wrote:It just strikes me as odd that you would describe this as brilliant when literally every other liberal democracy recognizes the right to national control of commerce, in those times and in our times, and the only reason it remains effective is because all limits have been essentially removed.
You simply don't seem to understand federalism. Liberal democracy and federalism are two completely different things. We were the first liberal democracy and the first modern federalist nation, the fact that our government has continued uninterrupted and in substantially the same form is a testament to it's brilliance. Longer than any other "liberal democracy" save Britain, and even they have radically changed their government more than we have in the same time period. You admit that the it remains effective, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about here.

It is like saying some dude is brilliant because a bridge he built fell down, but in doing so, people had to build a better bridge.

The bridge never fell down, it's still there, and has been standing longer than any bridge in existence. You have this warped view that a changing interpretation is a failure, when in fact that's the biggest point of success. Most other liberal democracies were given their constitutions by US, because their system of government failed to the point of absolute collapse and outright starvation and invasion of the home front. You guys were f**k colonies for another 50 years - no thanks. We built the first bridge, we built the biggest bridge, and that bridge is still here.

The SC could have gone another way. It didn't, so you're good, but it easily could have.

But it didn't so we are good. again, you don't even have a point here. You are operating in some hypothetical world where reality didn't happen which somehow proves your point 8-}

And for well over a century and a half, it did go the other way, putting severely damaging limits on federal power.

Yes, that was the point. Again, you don't seem to understand what federalism is.

How many children's lives were ruined for their brilliance? How much did labour rights get pushed back?

We were the most progressive nation on all of these issues. You guys were ruled by a king for 50 years before they were nice enough to let you go. Germany, welcomes that should be obvious. France had several government collapse and Japan was given their constitution by US. Of course it's not a perfect system but history has proven it to be better than just about any other system. Federalism was necessary in order to bring the states together and create the US as we know it. Imagine how much worse we would have been squabbling like europeans or bring dragged around on the British colonial leash.

It's not even clear what you are upset about or what your issue is.

Saying ambiguity is great when it works out in your favour is fine, but it doesn't make sense to say it is better when the great outcome was to remove all ambiguity.

The great outcome is not to remove all ambiguity. Lmao we live in THIS reality and in THIS reality you admit this all worked out in our favour. So your suggestion is we go out on a limb, listen to the guy who knows nothing about federalism, it's structures, the rational for implementing such a system, or the history behind it...to gain what? We are already the richest strongest nation on the planet with a completely unbroken line of government. We can't do any better and even if hypothetically we could, it's insane to argue for a different system that my all reasoned accounts could jeopardise that.

Edit: the other thing I'd point out is that saying something wasn't politically feasible doesn't make it not a mistake.

Uhh, read what you wrote here because it doesn't say what you think it says. Obviously "saying something wasn't politically feasible doesn't make it not a mistake". We just said it wasn't politically feasible.

The reason why it wasn't politically feasible is because people wrongly believed power over commerce should, to some degree, be shared or exist concurrently with each sovereign state. It was a mistake to believe that then, and it is a mistake to believe that now.
You are quite childish. The framers drafted a constitution that has lasted very well for 300+ years governing the worlds richest and most prosperous state. You run a pizza shop and seem to have no grasp on federalism, and yet you lecture people about wrongly believing this or that. Show some humility.
Pun intended for the plebes on here who don't get a joke
User avatar
Saz
Governor
 
Posts: 8448
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:37 am
Location: Airstrip One
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1068 times
Been thanked: 899 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: On America

Postby exploited » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:28 pm

I have a pretty good understanding of federalism, actually, considering that the Canadian system is the most effective and well-designed federalist government on the planet. In every aspect this government is superior, Constitutionally, to that of the United States. This has been the case since 1867 - thanks in large part to Sir John A. McDonalds' recognition of all that went wrong in your own constitutional processes.

As for it being effective, again, I have pointed to numerous examples showing it to be not effective. All of the examples I've provided rotate around the idea of sovereign states, the choice of what powers are enumerated for the federal government and what powers are not, etc.

The point of saying that it could have gone another way is to show the fundamental weakness of the design. When it is entirely conceivable that the federal government would be restricted from regulating mining, manufacturing or services (as it was for over a century), that suggests a serious error or omission. There is no way to really avoid that conclusion, other than to start in on your usual "MURICA" stuff, which in this case took less than three paragraphs.

As for being "upset," I don't know what you mean. I am discussing history because it is fun. If you don't want to discuss this, don't. This doesn't upset me. Further, my suggestion isn't that you "go out on a limb," my suggestion is that the authors of your Constitution made a mistake by not giving the federal government unlimited powers over commerce, from the start, as every other successful liberal democracy in the world has done. It really is that simple. In response you've said "But it all worked out in the end." Which isn't really a response, it is you just getting butthurt because I am correct, yet again.

This is really part of the problem with Americans. You have been utterly brainwashed into believing that your form of government is remarkable, brilliant, etc., when in fact it isn't. It is probably one of the single worst designs the world has ever seen. As far as I can tell, the people who wrote your Constitution were completely unable to engage in any sort of forward thinking about what might happen in the future. If anything, you have succeeded as a country in spite of your government, most certainly not because of it.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest