Shame on America

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
I am simply appalled at how numbed and dumbed down the American people have become. For the last many years, mercenaries and frustrated Pentagon hawks, furious over their lack of adequate battlefields upon which to ply their trade have found defenseless populations throughout the Middle East that they can experiment on without even a pretense of cause or limits. This transparently fanatical Christian crusade against Muslims everywhere sickens the rest of the world's nations.

Coupled with the enormous waste of human and economic resources associated with these meaningless campaigns is the greatest shift in wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of the United States. Greedy, hoarding corporate thieves and gangsters have stolen our money, exported our jobs to foreign countries, and virtually bankrupted the nation for their own profits. They have transformed our government into little more than a rubber stamp for corporate domination. There is no political force or voice in the country that can oppose or control these run-away oligarchs.

Around the world poor and working people are responding to despotism by rising up and replacing dictators with populist leaders. The recent uprisings in the Middle East are merely a harbinger of what lies ahead for the Banana Republics established by the U.S., England and other European states over the last century. U.S. "allies" are shaking in their boots over the fragility of their historical domination over subjected peoples.

Yet in this country, "leaders" from Jerry Brown to Barack Obama, call for the poor to "tighten their belts" and do with less. What kind of subjugated, self-loathing fools would tell poor people to give up more during such a period, rather than demand that the rich give the money back. What kind of weak-kneed cowards would allow these senseless wars to continue, instead of ending them? No, instead our "elected" officials call on the poor to give up education, health care, retirement benefits and social security.

We are to rally around the xenophobic hatred of all foreigners, and mindlessly support U.S. atrocities, from torture to drone attacks.

This is supposedly a nation of proud, free citizens, not a nation of cowards, lambs and idiots. Allowing corporate vandals to do to us and the world what they are doing without so much as a fight is shameful and disgusting. Clearly, it will be the brave people outside of this country that bring the U.S. oligarchy to its knees. Our countrymen will undoubtedly defend the rich by sacrificing the last starving child to some corporate billionaire.

Fourscore years ago, another American President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spoke the words that should be said during such a period:

"As I see it, the object of Government is the welfare of the people. The liberty of people to carry on their business should not be abridged unless the larger interests of the many are concerned. When the interests of the many are concerned, the interests of the few must yield. It is the purpose of the Government to see not only that the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.

These are the principles which we must remember in any consideration of this question. This, I take it, is sound Government -- not politics. Those are the essential basic conditions under which Government can be of service." (Franklin Roosevelt's Portland Speech, http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932a.htm )

We've fallen so far!

By LUKE HIKEN AT TRUTHOUT

Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:13pm.
 
signalmankenneth said:
I am simply appalled at how numbed and dumbed down the American people have become. For the last many years, mercenaries and frustrated Pentagon hawks, furious over their lack of adequate battlefields upon which to ply their trade have found defenseless populations throughout the Middle East that they can experiment on without even a pretense of cause or limits. This transparently fanatical Christian crusade against Muslims everywhere sickens the rest of the world's nations.

Coupled with the enormous waste of human and economic resources associated with these meaningless campaigns is the greatest shift in wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of the United States. Greedy, hoarding corporate thieves and gangsters have stolen our money, exported our jobs to foreign countries, and virtually bankrupted the nation for their own profits. They have transformed our government into little more than a rubber stamp for corporate domination. There is no political force or voice in the country that can oppose or control these run-away oligarchs.

Around the world poor and working people are responding to despotism by rising up and replacing dictators with populist leaders. The recent uprisings in the Middle East are merely a harbinger of what lies ahead for the Banana Republics established by the U.S., England and other European states over the last century. U.S. "allies" are shaking in their boots over the fragility of their historical domination over subjected peoples.

Yet in this country, "leaders" from Jerry Brown to Barack Obama, call for the poor to "tighten their belts" and do with less. What kind of subjugated, self-loathing fools would tell poor people to give up more during such a period, rather than demand that the rich give the money back. What kind of weak-kneed cowards would allow these senseless wars to continue, instead of ending them? No, instead our "elected" officials call on the poor to give up education, health care, retirement benefits and social security.

We are to rally around the xenophobic hatred of all foreigners, and mindlessly support U.S. atrocities, from torture to drone attacks.

This is supposedly a nation of proud, free citizens, not a nation of cowards, lambs and idiots. Allowing corporate vandals to do to us and the world what they are doing without so much as a fight is shameful and disgusting. Clearly, it will be the brave people outside of this country that bring the U.S. oligarchy to its knees. Our countrymen will undoubtedly defend the rich by sacrificing the last starving child to some corporate billionaire.

Fourscore years ago, another American President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spoke the words that should be said during such a period:

"As I see it, the object of Government is the welfare of the people. The liberty of people to carry on their business should not be abridged unless the larger interests of the many are concerned. When the interests of the many are concerned, the interests of the few must yield. It is the purpose of the Government to see not only that the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.

These are the principles which we must remember in any consideration of this question. This, I take it, is sound Government -- not politics. Those are the essential basic conditions under which Government can be of service." (Franklin Roosevelt's Portland Speech, http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932a.htm )

We've fallen so far!

By LUKE HIKEN AT TRUTHOUT

Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:13pm.
Click to expand...

"As I see it, the object of Government is the welfare of the people."

Exactly! What other moral or logical reason can there be for government?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the only reason for government is to safeguard the rights of its citizens. not to provide for their every need.
Click to expand...

If that is what the people require then that is what the government provides. If the people require a greater or lesser standard of welfare then that is what the government must supply.
Government of the people etc etc.
Of course when you have a right wing loony chant that 'we want a smaller government' it only causes divisions. If you do not like your government you have the chance of changing it at the next election.
 
Lowaicue said:
If that is what the people require then that is what the government provides. If the people require a greater or lesser standard of welfare then that is what the government must supply.
Government of the people etc etc.
Of course when you have a right wing loony chant that 'we want a smaller government' it only causes divisions. If you do not like your government you have the chance of changing it at the next election.
Click to expand...

do you honestly believe a government exists to serve every personal need of each and every citizen? why then did the constitution mention enumerated powers? why not just simply have a constitution that says:

the government provides for the general welfare. the general welfare is whatever the government determines its citizens are entitled to and require.

the end.
 
Yurt said:
do you honestly believe a government exists to serve every personal need of each and every citizen? why then did the constitution mention enumerated powers? why not just simply have a constitution that says:

the government provides for the general welfare. the general welfare is whatever the government determines its citizens are entitled to and require.

the end.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond the "general welfare". Insure domestic Tranquility. Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

How can domestic tranquility be established when people are homeless and hungry? They definitely are not tranquil.

How would inaction on the part of government by allowing people to needlessly suffer be considered helping to secure the blessings of liberty?

Note the following. "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Then we look at the words in the Preamble. Establish. Insure. Provide. Promote. Secure....all action verbs. They denote the government actively doing something.
 
Lowaicue said:
If that is what the people require then that is what the government provides. If the people require a greater or lesser standard of welfare then that is what the government must supply.
Government of the people etc etc.
Of course when you have a right wing loony chant that 'we want a smaller government' it only causes divisions. If you do not like your government you have the chance of changing it at the next election.
Click to expand...

We have that ability written into the US Constitution: read Amendment X. If the people of a state want their State government to provide cradle-to-grave pampering of its citizens, they are free to do so. Why do you want the federal government to ignore its own Constitution?
 
apple0154 said:
It goes beyond the "general welfare". Insure domestic Tranquility. Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

How can domestic tranquility be established when people are homeless and hungry? They definitely are not tranquil.

How would inaction on the part of government by allowing people to needlessly suffer be considered helping to secure the blessings of liberty?

Note the following. "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Then we look at the words in the Preamble. Establish. Insure. Provide. Promote. Secure....all action verbs. They denote the government actively doing something.
Click to expand...

Damn Yankee said:
James Madison predicted your argument and calls it an "absurdity" in Federalist 41:



Epic FAIL on your part. :)
Click to expand...
.
 
Damn Yankee said:
We have that ability written into the US Constitution: read Amendment X. If the people of a state want their State government to provide cradle-to-grave pampering of its citizens, they are free to do so. Why do you want the federal government to ignore its own Constitution?
Click to expand...

Why do I want ....?

You mistake me sir for someone who gives a rat's arse.
 
UOTE=apple0154;778051]It goes beyond the "general welfare". Insure domestic Tranquility. Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

How can domestic tranquility be established when people are homeless and hungry? They definitely are not tranquil.
Click to expand...

first, the preamble is not legal authority when citing the constitution. secondly, "domestic tranquility" refers to rebellion. domestic tranquility is about keeping the country intact, free from states going to war with each other. it has nothing to do with individuals and whether or not they have a home.


How would inaction on the part of government by allowing people to needlessly suffer be considered helping to secure the blessings of liberty?
Click to expand...

the government is not a "god" apple. the government cannot stop all suffering. liberty is about the ability that one has to obtain the best he can in life. they did not want the serf type system that england had. you're again confusing the reasons behind the constitution, it never guaranteed no one would suffer. thats pure utopia thinking.

Note the following. "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

Then we look at the words in the Preamble. Establish. Insure. Provide. Promote. Secure....all action verbs. They denote the government actively doing something.
Click to expand...

right, as i said above, it is not legal authority, but rather, persuasive authority that the court is not bound to adhere to. it is a technical difference that may seem odd to you, but it is a difference nonetheless. i don't be the founders ever considered the constitution to create a utopia where there would be no suffering, no poor or homeless people. it was a document to limit government and secure certain rights.
 
Yurt said:
first, the preamble is not legal authority when citing the constitution. secondly, "domestic tranquility" refers to rebellion. domestic tranquility is about keeping the country intact, free from states going to war with each other. it has nothing to do with individuals and whether or not they have a home.

the government is not a "god" apple. the government cannot stop all suffering. liberty is about the ability that one has to obtain the best he can in life. they did not want the serf type system that england had. you're again confusing the reasons behind the constitution, it never guaranteed no one would suffer. thats pure utopia thinking.

right, as i said above, it is not legal authority, but rather, persuasive authority that the court is not bound to adhere to. it is a technical difference that may seem odd to you, but it is a difference nonetheless. i don't be the founders ever considered the constitution to create a utopia where there would be no suffering, no poor or homeless people. it was a document to limit government and secure certain rights.
Click to expand...

There may be a technical difference between "legal authority" and "persuasive authority", however, the courts have stated the Preamble is reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

A court honoring that would not be considered out of line. There is the "letter" and the "spirit" of a law.

As for the founders never considering a utopia it's obvious from the Preamble they aspired to make the country and the life of it's citizens as pleasant or beneficial as possible which is obvious from the words they used (Establish. Insure. Provide. Promote. Secure.) They speak of action by the government.

If the government believes taking such an action will benefit the citizens, thereby improving the country as a whole, it is illogical to say that is not the government's responsibility.

The strength of a country, it's viability, is directly tied to it's citizens. We've witnessed that throughout history and, perhaps, there's nothing more evident than current events today.

While we see citizens demonstrating in a number of countries we're told they're rebelling against repression. What we're not told is they're rebelling against lack of equality and abject poverty.

Why aren't the great majority of citizens rebellling? Why isn't everyone rebelling? The answer, of course, is some citizens have it very well. Those who are part of the corrupt dictatorship have no reason to rebel.

The point being whether a government deliberately involves itself in discrimination/inequality or sits back and allows discrimination/inequality to occur the result is going to be the same. People rebel.

At the time the Constitution was written food and housing were there for the taking. Homesteading. Hunting. People had options so the government assisted/promoted those options by protecting people and allowing people to settle land.

Times are different but the goal of the government has not changed. It's objective is still to benefit the citizens thereby strengthening the country. If the government going bankrupt is bad for the country or if millions of people being thrown out of their homes or millions going hungry is bad then the government has the obligation to do whatever it can to prevent such from happening. It is illogical to say the government does not have the authority to insure the viability of the country.
 
Damn Yankee said:
We have that ability written into the US Constitution: read Amendment X. If the people of a state want their State government to provide cradle-to-grave pampering of its citizens, they are free to do so. Why do you want the federal government to ignore its own Constitution?
Click to expand...

He couldn't care less about the US Constitution. As a matter of fact he couldn't care less about his own countries uncodifed or de facto constitution either. That's why he bailed and lives in Hong Kong. He's a used up, broken down, British ex pat living off China's good will.
 
apple0154 said:
There may be a technical difference between "legal authority" and "persuasive authority", however, the courts have stated the Preamble is reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

A court honoring that would not be considered out of line. There is the "letter" and the "spirit" of a law.

As for the founders never considering a utopia it's obvious from the Preamble they aspired to make the country and the life of it's citizens as pleasant or beneficial as possible which is obvious from the words they used (Establish. Insure. Provide. Promote. Secure.) They speak of action by the government.

If the government believes taking such an action will benefit the citizens, thereby improving the country as a whole, it is illogical to say that is not the government's responsibility.

The strength of a country, it's viability, is directly tied to it's citizens. We've witnessed that throughout history and, perhaps, there's nothing more evident than current events today.

While we see citizens demonstrating in a number of countries we're told they're rebelling against repression. What we're not told is they're rebelling against lack of equality and abject poverty.

Why aren't the great majority of citizens rebellling? Why isn't everyone rebelling? The answer, of course, is some citizens have it very well. Those who are part of the corrupt dictatorship have no reason to rebel.

The point being whether a government deliberately involves itself in discrimination/inequality or sits back and allows discrimination/inequality to occur the result is going to be the same. People rebel.

At the time the Constitution was written food and housing were there for the taking. Homesteading. Hunting. People had options so the government assisted/promoted those options by protecting people and allowing people to settle land.

Times are different but the goal of the government has not changed. It's objective is still to benefit the citizens thereby strengthening the country. If the government going bankrupt is bad for the country or if millions of people being thrown out of their homes or millions going hungry is bad then the government has the obligation to do whatever it can to prevent such from happening. It is illogical to say the government does not have the authority to insure the viability of the country.
Click to expand...

you're confusing the role of the federal government as established by the US constitution. the federal government does not provide schools, welfare etc....those are not enumerated powers. you also appear to have ignored the fact that domestic tranquility does not mean what you think it means. you're also ignoring the fact that general welfare does not mean that there will be no poor.

there were plenty of poor people, including homeless when the constitution was written. people came from other countries, willing or unwillingly to gain the great american dream, that is, the ability make a better life. that is the primary goal of the constitution, it is not a guarantee that you will be successful, it merely secures you the right to try your best. it does not guarantee that you won't fail and end up in abject poverty. think the gilded age or the robber baron age...was the constitution amended to make the poor have more wealth?

your view of the constutition is essentially a marxist manifesto. you want the government to provide everything. that type of government has failed over and over. you are not entitled to riches, you are entitled to work your ass off to try and attain that. the government does not guarantee you the right of riches or any amount of money. period.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
He couldn't care less about the US Constitution. As a matter of fact he couldn't care less about his own countries uncodifed or de facto constitution either. That's why he bailed and lives in Hong Kong. He's a used up, broken down, British ex pat living off China's good will.
Click to expand...

My goodness, you possess a rare talent for extreme stupidity, madam.
Much of any country's exports are generated by the thousands of people who serve from overseas. No one 'bails out' you stupid woman. We might seize an opportunity that perhaps was hidden from you or that you chose not to see, that is a problem for you.
I live off no one's good will, I have earned my corn, I have earned my retirement and am fortunate in that I can choose to stay here where the weather suits me and where the social life keeps me occupied or move back to the UK.
Its my choice, not yours, so get back to kicking pebbles, you sour loser.
 
Yurt said:
you're confusing the role of the federal government as established by the US constitution. the federal government does not provide schools, welfare etc....those are not enumerated powers. you also appear to have ignored the fact that domestic tranquility does not mean what you think it means. you're also ignoring the fact that general welfare does not mean that there will be no poor.

there were plenty of poor people, including homeless when the constitution was written. people came from other countries, willing or unwillingly to gain the great american dream, that is, the ability make a better life. that is the primary goal of the constitution, it is not a guarantee that you will be successful, it merely secures you the right to try your best. it does not guarantee that you won't fail and end up in abject poverty. think the gilded age or the robber baron age...was the constitution amended to make the poor have more wealth?
Click to expand...

As I explained earlier there were more opportunities for the average person to acquire the "American dream". Those who came from other countries, in those days, were physically able. Money and education had little to do with banging a stick in the ground for homesteading or shooting something for dinner.

The point being everyone had a equal chance.

your view of the constutition is essentially a marxist manifesto. you want the government to provide everything. that type of government has failed over and over. you are not entitled to riches, you are entitled to work your ass off to try and attain that. the government does not guarantee you the right of riches or any amount of money. period.
Click to expand...

As far as every "Socialist" government failing how many of them were democracies? There are numerous governments today which are considered socialist (Northern/western European) and are doing just as well as other countries.

I don't expect governments to provide everything, however, times change. The perfect example is medical care. There was no medical care when the Constitution was written so how could the founders possibly have addressed that? Is one to assume if the founders were aware medication and operations would almost double life span they wouldn't have cared?

Expecting government to do things because people are lazy or want something for nothing is a bogus argument. That is not human nature. Unless one is ill they want to improve their lot in life and just as things were equal when the Constitution was written (everyone had an equal chance at success) people expect the same equality today.
 
Yurt said:
you're confusing the role of the federal government as established by the US constitution. the federal government does not provide schools, welfare etc....those are not enumerated powers. you also appear to have ignored the fact that domestic tranquility does not mean what you think it means. you're also ignoring the fact that general welfare does not mean that there will be no poor.

there were plenty of poor people, including homeless when the constitution was written. people came from other countries, willing or unwillingly to gain the great american dream, that is, the ability make a better life. that is the primary goal of the constitution, it is not a guarantee that you will be successful, it merely secures you the right to try your best. it does not guarantee that you won't fail and end up in abject poverty. think the gilded age or the robber baron age...was the constitution amended to make the poor have more wealth?

your view of the constutition is essentially a marxist manifesto. you want the government to provide everything. that type of government has failed over and over. you are not entitled to riches, you are entitled to work your ass off to try and attain that. the government does not guarantee you the right of riches or any amount of money. period.
Click to expand...

"Marxist manifesto", could you possibly be more hyperbolic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top