Please don't let this happen!

[AppleTown]

@ Appletown: First off the I am not an R and yes there are progressives that hark back to both of the US modern day political parties. All modern day movements take on different meanings and today's "progressive movement" has many different leanings than La Follete's.
If all modern day "progressives" were more like La Follette I might could be a fan, but there is a sinister side to "progressivism" one of them is
Eugenics

Some progressives, especially among economists, sponsored eugenics as a collectivist solution to excessively large or underperforming families, hoping that birth control would enable parents to focus their resources on fewer, better children.[26] However, most Progressives insisted on individual solutions, and there were no major national, state or local programs along eugenics lines. Progressive leaders like Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann indicated their classically liberal concern over the danger posed to the individual by collectivism and statism.[27] The Catholics, although favoring collectivism, strongly opposed eugenics proposals such as birth control.
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[12] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[13][14] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[15] Margaret Sanger,[16][17] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[18] and Sidney Webb.[19][20][21] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States. Thanks to Margaret Sanger and the "progressive".
Dont ask me what I think about John Maynard Keynes.
Read: Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Bastiat, or Hazlitt.

I didn't say you were Republican. But why are your attacks on modern progressive politics based on evidence even older than Bob La Follette? Your "evidence" is a red herring. There are few people in the modern progressive movement espousing the ideas of Hitler, but there are tons of progressives actively quoting, studying, mirroring and learning from Bob La Follette. There are many modern progressives who mirror Sanger's ideas about access to birth control and freedom to make one's own medical decisions, but few who espouse her eugenics ideas. The majority of modern progressives are more like La Follette than you give them credit for; please read up more on the current governor of Wisconsin and his active support of Koch Brother's owned corporations instead of his own people. That's why I thought your post so embarrassing.

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:

Eugenics
At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people,
including Winston Churchill,[15] Margaret Sanger,[16][17] Marie
Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John
Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[18] and Sidney
Webb.[19][20][21] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was,
however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in
Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of
"defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States. Thanks to
Margaret Sanger and the "progressive".

Dont ask me what I think about John Maynard Keynes.
Read: Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Bastiat, or Hazlitt.


I didn't know Keynes was a eugenicist. What's worse is that the
eugenics society he was part of lives on in another name. I didn't
think that such places exist - I was sort of naively hoping that the
last remnants was confined to pedigree dog breeders.

Hayek's neoliberal deregulated model is dead - it was responsible for
the Global Banking collapse and the overheating of the global property
market. His ideas, and those pioneered by The Chicago Boys, destroyed
countries. The damage is still ongoing and it will take decades for it
to be fully repaired. The gap between the rich and poor simply
exploded in every country they were implemented.

Social stratification is inevitable but there has to be a certain
balance. People starving is just not acceptable. Collectivism is a
bottom-up movement, elitism is top-down. The third social values
model, altruism, isn't really relevant here except that it proves one
thing, not all people are socially selfish. We need leaders but, as
you said, Appletown, we need to limit their powers so that the people
are heard.

It is interesting to think that all around the world, in nearly
virtually every country, people are thinking about the same thing. How
do we get a government to fairly represent us? The western world is
lucky - our ancestors fought our battles for us and laid down their
lives so that we don't have to. Other countries still have to make
that transition and for many it won't come without bloodshed. Mexico,
Columbia, Libya, Syria, have a long and bloodied path to take. Tunisia
and Egypt have shown examples to the others.

But in some ways it is easier for the North African countries as their
people are highly educated. This is a region that produced the
Egyptian empire and the Moors. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the
Moors brought with them huge libraries, modern medicine and science.
This was in a continent where the native people thought it was a good
idea to bathe infants in contaminated water and had loads of other
harmful superstitions.

Central, Western, Eastern and Southern Africa won't have this benefit
to help them.

 

[wineboyrider]

The majority of modern progressives are more like La Follette than you give them credit for; please read up more on the current governor of Wisconsin and his active support of Koch Brother's owned corporations instead of his own people. That's why I thought your post so embarrassing

What's more embarrassing is the fact that you fail to realize or acknowledge the fact that the "progressive" movement also has a dark history and is totally counter to the ideas of La Follettte.
A brief list of big government "failed "progressive ideas
Prohibition
Internment camps for American born citizens of Japanese decent
Eugenics: oops already mentioned that one
Seizing of Gold
The Federal Reserve: This one was supposed to be what La Follette was against corporate bankers aka J.P. Morgan the biggest Bankster of them all.
All of the above are unconstitutional!
Although according to what I learned La Follette was intending to help the little people through his progressive movement the "movement" went in the opposite direction of it's intentions.
As far as the Koch brothers go I agree the "Tea Party" has been co-opted by rich filthy corporatists! That's why I am still a libertarian and the only candidates I support now that have an R in their name is Ron Paul!
"Progressive Liberals" love the state, because they think they can control it. I make no such fantasy assumption therefore I oppose the monstrosity of the state. All power to the state...not for me.
The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational "guilds" of all types in the late 19th century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields.
Mises"
In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious "middle way" between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business, and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all."

 

[wineboyrider]

Joseph C wrote: Hayek's neoliberal deregulated model is dead - it was responsible for the Global Banking collapse and the overheating of the global property market.

Hayek does not advocate the Fifth Plank of Communism: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)


Entirely the opposite! You are confused, because you believe that the Federal Reserve's cartel of the money supply is capitalism!
It is not!
By this statement I know for a fact you have not read Hayek.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:
Joseph C wrote: Hayek's neoliberal deregulated model is dead - it was
responsible for the Global Banking collapse and the overheating of the
global property market.

Hayek does not advocate the Fifth Plank of Communism: Centralization
of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with
State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank,
1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which
maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)


Entirely the opposite! You are confused, because you believe that the
Federal Reserve's cartel of the money supply is capitalism!
It is not!
By this statement I know for a fact you have not read Hayek.



I have read about him - not quite the same. : ) I thought it was
Friedman who wanted to disband the Reserve? Perhaps not.

Though just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the US Federal Reserve,
I wasn't even talking about the U.S. More the world.

Hmmm, I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I will have to
give it some further thought and some reading...

Opening up the money supply to competition that is.

 

[wineboyrider]

Joseph C wrote: Hayek's neoliberal deregulated model is dead - it was responsible for the Global Banking collapse and the overheating of the global property market.

Hayek does not advocate the Fifth Plank of Communism: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)


Entirely the opposite! You are confused, because you believe that the Federal Reserve's cartel of the money supply is capitalism!
It is not!
By this statement I know for a fact you have not read Hayek.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

I have read about him - not quite the same. : ) I thought it was Friedman who wanted to disband the Reserve? Perhaps not.

Though just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the US Federal Reserve, I wasn't even talking about the U.S. More the world.

Hmmm, I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I will have to give it some further thought and some reading...

Opening up the money supply to competition that is.

Opening up the money supply to competition, yes Joseph C you are beginning to understand where I come from! The world's currency is based on the fiat dollar. Friedman is a monetarist a totally different animal than an Austrian Economist. 8)
I think you understand what I meant now kudos for you. I am an economist by the way and economics is my favorite subject!
8)

 

[Joseph C.]

Right I have considered it and here are my concerns and thoughts.

The EU is completely different to the U.S. as it is a collection of
countries not a collection of states within a country.

Having the single currency - with the European Central Bank printing
off the money instead of the National Central Banks meant that a
crucial safeguard was removed. Individual quantitative easing could
not be carried out. And the biggest pressure release of all, the
tried-and-trusted currency devaluation was off the cards completely.

Having national currencies in place, instead of the Euro, would have
meant that there was no economic meltdown in Europe. The banking
crisis would not be the behemoth that is now.

But the EU states are individual, sovereign countries - how would
having multiple, independent federal reserves/currencies work in a
single country?

Hayek, from what I am reading, wanted multiple currencies in which
individuals could chose which one they wanted? That could never work.
You could go down the road and you would find that such and such
people prefer to use a different currency. It would be chaos. The
country would grind to a halt.

Eventually you would have to return to a mono currency and reliability
and the freedom to choose goes out the window.

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:
Entirely the opposite! You are confused, because you believe that the
Federal Reserve's cartel of the money supply is capitalism!
It is not!
By this statement I know for a fact you have not read Hayek.



I have read about him - not quite the same. : ) I thought it was
Friedman who wanted to disband the Reserve? Perhaps not.

Though just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the US Federal Reserve,
I wasn't even talking about the U.S. More the world.

Hmmm, I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad idea. I will have to
give it some further thought and some reading...

Opening up the money supply to competition that is.[/quote]
Opening up the money supply to competition, yes Joseph C you are
beginning to understand where I come from! The world's currency is
based on the fiat dollar. Friedman is a monetarist a totally different
animal than an Austrian Economist.
I think you understand what I meant now kudos for you. I am an
economist by the way and economics is my favorite subject!
[/quote]

I picked a good person to debate with so.

 

[Joseph C.]

Okay, if Hayek believed the problem with the Federal Reserve was that
monetary manipulation - price-setting - would distort interest rates
etc. surely this would be increased greatly with a plural monetary
system.

It would be in the private banks' interests to set currency prices to
private them going out of businesses. You would have a banking cartel.

'If a single monetary authority within a national area can create such
serious distortions and imbalances, a multitude of private banks each
increasing or decreasing their currencies as guided by various price
indices could intensify the number of faulty price signals by which
investors might be influenced in making their production decisions'

Richard M. Ebeling.

 

[manitu]

The biggest problem with the current capitalism , is the lending model. The fact that a bank can lend out much more money , than it has in its reserves means that lending money is neccecary for most money to exist. When people take a loan , more money is put into existence electronically , wich makes for inflation. when the bubble breaks , money is automaically retracted as people defaults on ther loans, and money disappears (from the poor atleast). A self regulating boom and bust model.

.manitu

 

[wineboyrider]

Right I have considered it and here are my concerns and thoughts.

The EU is completely different to the U.S. as it is a collection of countries not a collection of states within a country.

Having the single currency - with the European Central Bank printing off the money instead of the National Central Banks meant that a crucial safeguard was removed. Individual quantitative easing could not be carried out. And the biggest pressure release of all, the tried-and-trusted currency devaluation was off the cards completely.

Having national currencies in place, instead of the Euro, would have meant that there was no economic meltdown in Europe. The banking crisis would not be the behemoth that is now.

But the EU states are individual, sovereign countries - how would having multiple, independent federal reserves/currencies work in a single country?

Hayek, from what I am reading, wanted multiple currencies in which individuals could chose which one they wanted? That could never work. You could go down the road and you would find that such and such people prefer to use a different currency. It would be chaos. The country would grind to a halt.

Eventually you would have to return to a mono currency and reliability and the freedom to choose goes out the window.

I am now very impressed! Austrian economists advocate a gold standard (silver, copper or other precious metals). The reason why is that the politicians do not have control over the currency, the free market does! It is hard to imagine, but in a true Austrian economy there is very little or no inflation. Only the finding of a huge new resource (like gold or silver) will cause inflation. The meltdown is caused by the printing of too many dollars pure and simple and the crisis we are in is manufactured to keep the US empire floating. Fiat currency is great, but when fear is involved (i.e. value of money etc.) than all hell breaks loose. The reason why individual sovereign countries cannot get out of debt is because we have a monetary system that is based on slavery (aka indentured servitude)
Joseph C stated" You could go down the road and you would find that such and such people prefer to use a different currency. It would be chaos."
Hayek's proposal is particularly radical because it combines a number of distinct ideas that are already quite radical enough:

* "Free banking" – banks ought to be able to issue currency and create deposits (conceptually the same thing), choose their own reserve ratios and generally operate entirely without regulation.
* Different denominations – privately issued currencies need not be all denominated in the same unit: Citibank's Wristons and Chase Manhattan's Rockefellers would be traded against each other in a currency market just as the different national currencies are today.
* Private fiat money – these private currencies need not necessarily be convertible into gold or any underlying commodity, but would trade entirely on the word of the issuing bank that it would not debauch its money.
This also Ron Paul's method to ending the Federal Reserve. Read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul.

 

[wineboyrider]

The biggest problem with the current capitalism , is the lending model. The fact that a bank can lend out much more money , than it has in its reserves means that lending money is neccecary for most money to exist. When people take a loan , more money is put into existence electronically , wich makes for inflation. when the bubble breaks , money is automaically retracted as people defaults on ther loans, and money disappears (from the poor atleast). A self regulating boom and bust model.

.manitu

Yes! Again bingo! Now you understand where I come from!
8) 8) 8) 8)
P.S.
Also know as fractional reserve banking!

 

[Joseph C.]

manitu wrote:
The biggest problem with the current capitalism , is the lending
model. The fact that a bank can lend out much more money , than it has
in its reserves means that lending money is neccecary for most money
to exist. When people take a loan , more money is put into existence
electronically , wich makes for inflation. when the bubble breaks ,
money is automaically retracted as people defaults on ther loans, and
money disappears (from the poor atleast). A self regulating boom and
bust model.

.manitu


You are completely correct. A return to deposit based lending would
solve a recurrence of this problem overnight.

 

[wineboyrider]

Hayek's proposal is particularly radical because it combines a number of distinct ideas that are already quite radical enough:

* "Free banking" – banks ought to be able to issue currency and create deposits (conceptually the same thing), choose their own reserve ratios and generally operate entirely without regulation.
* Different denominations – privately issued currencies need not be all denominated in the same unit: Citibank's Wristons and Chase Manhattan's Rockefellers would be traded against each other in a currency market just as the different national currencies are today.
* Private fiat money – these private currencies need not necessarily be convertible into gold or any underlying commodity, but would trade entirely on the word of the issuing bank that it would not debauch its money.

Damn! I thought I was surrounded by socialists and hooray..not intellectuals who understand what I am laying down!
Awesome!

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:
Hayek's proposal is particularly radical because it combines a number
of distinct ideas that are already quite radical enough:

* "Free banking" – banks ought to be able to issue currency and
create deposits (conceptually the same thing), choose their own
reserve ratios and generally operate entirely without regulation.
* Different denominations – privately issued currencies need not be
all denominated in the same unit: Citibank's Wristons and Chase
Manhattan's Rockefellers would be traded against each other in a
currency market just as the different national currencies are today.
* Private fiat money – these private currencies need not necessarily
be convertible into gold or any underlying commodity, but would trade
entirely on the word of the issuing bank that it would not debauch its
money.

Damn! I thought I was surrounded by socialists and hooray..not
intellectuals who understand what I am laying down!
Awesome!


I can only speak for myself. All I can say is I am not conservative
and I would imagine most people are not once they fully understand
what it means.

I suppose if there is a box - it would be liberal socialist.

I believe that society should have built in safe-guards to protect the
vulnerable. There should be free healthcare, third level eduction and
welfare paid by taxes. Free third level education pays for itself
anyway. Public healthcare is cheaper, and more efficient (when it is
done properly though I'm not saying that this is the case in Ireland)
than the cost of healthcare in the U.S. which is the most expensive in
the world. Private enterprise, and in particular SMEs, should be
actively encouraged - the US excels at this.

Getting back to Hayek. I think the Gold Standard might be a good idea
- the multiple currencies would be terrible though. I don't think the
EU states need it - either the Euro creates safeties or the Euro
member states returns to our national currencies. The Euro is a great
idea but if it is too unstable and peripheral countries are going to
be continually crippled by it - then it has to go.

It may be prudent for the US though. But before any of this happens
you will have to change your political system. You won't get anywhere
with implementing radical changes with a two-party state. Especially,
when the two parties are difficult to distinguish with no real
alternative. In reality - you have a right-wing party and another
party that is slightly more right-wing.
Yellow Magpie - Home Of The Talented And The Interesting

 

[manitu]

The Euro is going down , and soon. We have a buch of countries with different financial and foreign policies , but the same currency. If the currency was actually backed by something or had a value in itself , it would have a chance. Today germany is doing it's homework , but have to lend money to the PIGS (Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain) , wich seems to pay no attention to the EU budget regulations. The EU crisis fund wich they talks about nowadays is like tryng to repair brain damage with a band aid.

.manitu

 

[Joseph C.]

manitu wrote:
The Euro is going down , and soon. We have a buch of countries with
different financial and foreign policies , but the same currency. If
the currency was actually backed by something or had a value in itself
, it would have a chance. Today germany is doing it's homework , but
have to lend money to the PIGS (Portugal Italy Greece and Spain) ,
wich seems to pay no attention to the EU budget regulations. The EU
crisis fund wich they talks about nowadays is like tryng to repair
brain damage with a band aid.

.manitu


I = Ireland. Italy has a bit to go yet before it gets included.

The banking sector was a private concern - that was poorly regulated.
The bondholders should have been left to burn and the debt should not
have been nationalised. We should have followed the Icelandic model.

Germany is part of the mess - it is just as culpable for lending the
money as the banks were for borrowing it. The Germans don't want to
hear that but who cares. They are hoping that the EU can sort out the
contagion and isolate the PIGS - they know our mountain of debt is too
high but their strategy is to get enough time so that the core
countries are okay. Once that happens the PIGS can be put down.

As for value in itself? All values are bestowed. Money and currency
has no extrinsic value.

 

[dannyboyohyeah]

I think everyone knows that the moment their own head strikes asphault at 30mph, they would hope to be wearing a helmet (that day).
I don't think this issue is about what happens with helmets/vs/no helmets. I think this issue is about what happens when the government thinks EVERYTHING through for you until you are either an apathetic zombie or a rebellious, fed-up radical. People need to be encouraged to choose their ways through life, period. When all that energy is usurped by the steady encroachment of MUST...something much less than ideal creeps it's way into us. How all those thousands fell under the spell of Hilter's fear backed "encouragement"....well that is happening again right here at home, now. We should keep our eye on it and yell at it a little bit, before it's britches get too big.

 

[wineboyrider]

I suppose if there is a box - it would be liberal socialist.

I believe that society should have built in safe-guards to protect the vulnerable. There should be free healthcare, third level eduction and welfare paid by taxes. Free third level education pays for itself anyway. Public healthcare is cheaper, and more efficient (when it is done properly though I'm not saying that this is the case in Ireland) than the cost of healthcare in the U.S. which is the most expensive in the world. Private enterprise, and in particular SMEs, should be actively encouraged - the US excels at this.

Getting back to Hayek. I think the Gold Standard might be a good idea - the multiple currencies would be terrible though. I don't think the EU states need it - either the Euro creates safeties or the Euro member states returns to our national currencies. The Euro is a great idea but if it is too unstable and peripheral countries are going to be continually crippled by it - then it has to go.

It may be prudent for the US though. But before any of this happens you will have to change your political system. You won't get anywhere with implementing radical changes with a two-party state. Especially, when the two parties are difficult to distinguish with no real alternative. In reality - you have a right-wing party and another party that is slightly more right-wing.

The built in safe guards that you talk about is covered in the US by the "bill of rights"
The free goods I don't agree with healthcare etc., but anyone with a heart and rational mind would help their fellow man. As far as our two party system you are right. Obama has gotten the US into another war and that is also unconstitutional. The US does not need to change our system we only need to return to our "founding fathers" original intent. Joseph C you are a scholar and a gentlemen.
What country are you from?

 

[manitu]

Yeah I for Ireland , ofcourse. Should know better that posting from the bed. I know that money has no inherent value (today) and that gold cant be eaten. But even without fractional banking we must prevent the goverments from just upping the money-supply , and hence steal money from everybody else.

.manitu

 

[wineboyrider]

Yeah I for Ireland , ofcourse. Should know better that posting from the bed. I know that money has no inherent value (today) and that gold cant be eaten. But even without fractional banking we must prevent the goverments from just upping the money-supply , and hence steal money from everybody else.

.manitu

Damn good logic!

 

[wineboyrider]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,758883,00.html
Here is an interesting Tea Party European style article!
8)

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,758883,00.html
Here is an interesting Tea Party European style article!



Finland was quite happy to burn all the foreign investors when their
country was in trouble in the 90's. Now Olli Rehn (former Finnish
cabinet minister) is representing the ECB (German banks) and telling
us no, we can't burn the bondholders. When the only reasonable
recourse is to burn them. With a proposed debt write-off - if you want
to be more fairer.

It is only rational that countries will become more euro-sceptic and
nationalistic when they see the huge flaws in EU policy and nothing
being done about them. People, including myself, are all paying
attention now, we weren't before but this has woken us all up.

Of course some of these parties are complete nutters - but they are
probably the only ones offering a proper alternative. Do a bad job and
you will be gone.

 

[Joseph C.]

manitu wrote:
Yeah I for Ireland , ofcourse. Should know better that posting from
the bed. I know that money has no inherent value (today) and that gold
cant be eaten. But even without fractional banking we must prevent the
goverments from just upping the money-supply , and hence steal money
from everybody else.

.manitu


I don't think that politicians actively go out to steal money from the
people. I can think of one or two who have in Ireland but I would put
them down to having severe personality disorders - the types that make
them seem like narcissists even to narcissists!

No, what I think happens is that they have no experience of economics
and how it works. In Ireland, our last two Ministers of Finance have
been a local solicitor and a barrister. These guys haven't a clue
about economics. The ultimate testament to this is that Ireland is no
longer a sovereign nation. Our latest one is a school teacher and I
don't have great hopes for him either.

I am sure that this is repeated in many other countries also. Whereas
most people wouldn't take on such important roles without having
sufficient expertise in the area, politicians tend to be narcissistic
and are wrongly unfazed by this. It is far easier to point out which
politicians are narcissistic as opposed to those who are not. And that
is sadly what is wrong.

 

[Joseph C.]

wineboyrider wrote:
The built in safe guards that you talk about is covered in the US by
the "bill of rights"
The free goods I don't agree with healthcare etc., but anyone with a
heart and rational mind would help their fellow man. As far as our two
party system you are right. Obama has gotten the US into another war
and that is also unconstitutional. The US does not need to change our
system we only need to return to our "founding fathers" original
intent. Joseph C you are a scholar and a gentlemen.
What country are you from?


Thank you. Ireland.

I think the biggest flaw in the United States political system is that
you have a static constitution. It is treated like some sort of 200
year old political bible. Whereas you need a dynamic constitution,
something that the people can change to suit their needs. Because if
don't you are open to judges and politicians abusing it.

Several years ago, when anti-Americanism was at its height and Bush
had being re-elected for this second term, Supreme Court Judge Anton
Scalia, came to our University to give a talk on U.S. Justice to the
Law Faculty. After listening to this guy I realised how lucky we are
in Ireland to have a dynamic constitution with referendums.

What's written on a text can be interpreted many different ways. You
can go by the letter of it, the spirit of it, treat it as a historical
document etc. What Scalia was doing, had done, and I assume, continues
to do, is twist the words of the text to suit his own agenda.
Politicians elect these guys to do their bidding and to serve their
ideology.

Scalia is a bully - that resorted to cheap shots - when his bullshit
was questioned by virtually everyone in the University. There was
absolutely no consistency in how he applied the U.S. Constitution -
basically he would spin it to whatever method best suited his ends.

On the plus side, I don't think he will ever visit Ireland again.