- NEW!
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 27th, 2009
I agree it's the biogoted bible thumping conservatives that refuse to stop acting like 4 year olds and prevent our country from standing for liberty and justice FOR ALL. Not just those that go to church.
by machinerat on May 27th, 2009
We need a new generation of thinkers that can bring new, smarter ideas to the table that take into account where we are going and where we want to be... not just to make sure the next quarter is profitable.
by tonsofun on May 27th, 2009
As you see by other respondants the key is divided we fall. With exception to possibly 8 single issues most americans are moderate on issues, or at least willing to listen. The problem is that leaders choose the most volatile issues to campaign on and backburner the real changeable things. By putting citizens at odds with one another they villify their oppossition and over simplify the campaign. The issues most of us should look are possibly these: Health Care, Economy, Schools, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security.If you notice these are Presidential Cabinet positions and are in serious turmoil right now. What is being argued about most: Abortion - a single citizen issue, Gun control - a single Citizen issue, Immigration - a single citizen issue, Prayer/Intelligent design - a single citizen issue. These issues are things that should be dealt with on smaller levels, not nationally. Utah due to its founders and peoples have chosen a particular cirriculum and proceed peacefully. Broad National change would effect them when it shouldn't, because collectively it works well in that state. But huge national change should not disrupt states as they are. State issues should be dealt with at that level. Single person issues are not served by broad national change. My best example is if your car is stolen whom do you contact, FBI, National Guard, or state and local police. Some issues seem very big because they are personal to you, but for campaigns for national politics they should not be of primary concern. The well being of all is fundamental. Will you care about what other citizens beliefs on an issue are if you are broke or sick, how about if a disaster hits again, will you care what he does in his home? Issues are important, but the correct issues should be debated on their true scale, big issues that effect all the citizens and smaller issues that effect some of the citizens. Thank you for you time.
by The Mess on May 27th, 2009
Disagree. Yes we are corrupt, and have a lot of problems to sort out, but I'd still rather live here. And the founding fathers had their own share of problems so...I mean they're almost mythical the way they're described. It's the way it transpired like it or not that's history and we're creating our own now. "Defeat the wackjobs of the far left" -Cowboy. This is not helping the country and sums up everything I believe about the Right. All they care about is winning. I had a roommate from Kansas who voted for Bush his second term so he could say, "his guy beat our guy." All I ever hear from the 3 fat men Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck is winning. When you did win, yeah you won...then drove the country into the ground. Now you lost so shut up and take it.
by Bowen on May 27th, 2009
Agreed. I don't anything can be done. Our nation is fundamentally flawed. Instead of a "Bill of Rights", our Constitution should have been written with a "Bill of Rights and Social Responsibilities." The concept of personal rights without personal responsibility has led to a sense of entitlement that may never be reversed. What strikes me as particularly strange is that the people who screech the loudest about their Constitutional rights always seem to be the least familiar with the Constitution itself.
by Talamasca on May 27th, 2009
Good question. The last couple of decades have turned this country into a political and politically correct train wreck waiting to happen.
by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on May 28th, 2009
Strongly agree.
I think we need to undo the damage that the uber-Right has done already and then do what we can to prevent extremists of either side from gaining control.
Also, I would like to see something that many may call socialism; give the bottom 80% of Americans at least 10% of the money. I have no problem with people being rewarded for hard work and all, but I would like to see the less lucky but equally hard-working people have at least enough money to live indoors and eat on a regular basis.. and maybe even see a doctor once in a while.
Try spending four months in the ICU without insurance. See how long you can pay your mortgage after one job lays you off and the other forces you to retire. Not a good way to treat a veteran, eh? Well, according to our current philosophy, it is ENTIRELY fair!
We also have to do something about voter apathy. Last election was a record turnout and yet barely over half of eligible voters hit the polling stations. Other nations consider anything less than 75% turnout to be lazy yet we regularly have <50%. More people vote for American Idol than for American President. WTF?!
And maybe education would be a good thing. We improve our grades by lowering our standards. If a school fails to meet certain standards, we cut their funding and make the kids dumber. Most schools are more concerned with teaching to the test than educating their students, and one of the first things to go is history. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Why does history matter? Well, our founding fathers were not born yesterday; it's been well over two centuries since they last walked the Earth. How can we even know what they said or did or intended if we do not study history?
And maybe we should be a little less elitist and arrogant. If you think we are so great then let us see how well we can do with zero imports. If you feel our nation is so great that we are ENTITLED to just take what we want, then Sig Heil!
We need to be good neighbors and work on getting along with the rest of the world, and that means getting rid of our hyper-inflated egos.
There are *so* many things wrong with our nation as it stands that we may be better off just knocking it all down and starting from square one; the US Constitution. The document that our forefathers wrote, that our politicians are sworn to serve, and that our military has spilled a lot of OUR (soldiers and sailors are Americans too) own blood to defend.
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on May 27th, 2009
Agree.
Fascist liberals taken over the media, the schools, and now the government.
Defeat the wackjobs of the far left.
by Anonymous on May 28th, 2009
The problems used to be within our boundaries, and manageable if we so truly desired, but I fear that the outide world has collectively and indivually outgrown us in all of the essential avenues. No, any TWO countries, non-superpowers could either defeat or bankrupt us with a war..and wars have a history of spreading with "mutual aid" agreements.
We cant fix what is now broken..we no longer own, nor control the problem.
by Factotum on May 27th, 2009
I agree, we have lost much of the original ethos. I'm not sure anything can be done to actually change it, because we are all picking each other's pockets through taxes and tax breaks and special programs and such-like. .
"What's good for M&M enterprises is good for the country" - Milo Minderbinder in 'Catch-22'
by TerminaAdventurer on May 27th, 2009
America has never been a great idea. Even when we first moved here, we killed Indians and took their land, all in the name of "the American Dream".
by josie III on August 5th, 2009
I think the US is still fundamentally OK. BUT, the federal government is absolutely bloated, corrupt and a poor facsimile of what the Founders intended.
by TomFluflu on August 3rd, 2009
Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.
.
Our current president is determined to turn this country into a banana republic.
.
Obama believes that it is unfair for the US to a great nation.
by IntotheForge on August 3rd, 2009
Yes; the founding fathers couldn't possibly have percieved the effects The Great World War and post-industrial consumerism would have on the nation; and there's not really anything we can do, since the collective will go on evolving regardless of it's individual parts to the tune of those sociopathic overlords with armies of people who somehow can see a part of the 'big picture', and use it to make America a bloated, corrupt poor facsimile of what a bunch of Bentham-thumping rebels thought would make for a good country.
by ThomasPaine on August 3rd, 2009
New thinkers, old thoughts. Classical liberalism/libertarianism.
by The Wraith of God is Coming on May 28th, 2009
I would have to agree and the next generation is a bunch of video game playing simpletons with no job skills. As a result they will be stupid fat and lazy just like from animal house.
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
<elsewhere>
by Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
I agree.
Solution: Obliterate capitalism and remove all Zionist politicians from our government.
by Iceander on June 4th, 2011
I'm well aware that American as a whole is in real bad shape. But after reading that some actually think this country was founded on Christianity... Now I'm getting convinced there is no hope...
WAKE YOUR MIND UP AMERICA!
Does anyone still deny a mainstream media bias?
by Nate on September 7th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is "rightist" the same thing as "conservative" and "leftist" the same thing as "liberal"?
by lauriegirl on September 16th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
hypothetical scenario: Obama/Biden simultaniously die. Boehner is now forced to cohabitate with a democratic cabinet...
by crubs83 on September 23rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What political party do you stand with? and why
by Andre_W1752 on October 8th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How is world economics NOT becoming tyrannical socialism, as depicted by business and their formats and layouts of business?
by wiseacre on September 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading The United States of America is a bloated, corrupt, poor facsimile of the Nation any of our Founding Fathers intended it to be. Do you agree or disagree, why; and what should be done to resolve the problem?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Actually...if you look at history, this country that your bashing was actually founded on Christianity...it's kind of weird
by Jman82 on May 27th, 2009
Oh but it isn't. And if you knew your history, you'd know that.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 27th, 2009
Can't agree with you, Austinius. While Bible-thumpers certainly try to encroach on others' freedoms so do people at the more liberal end of the spectrum.
by Factotum on May 27th, 2009
Austinius...how is this country not founded on Christianity? Please enlighten the rest of us who don't apparently understand how to read english
by Jman82 on May 27th, 2009
Would you take the words of John Adams, Andrew Jackson, James Monroe, John Henry, George Cabbot, and Arron Burr? They openly stated and SIGNED documentation to the effect. How about the DIRECT quote "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 27th, 2009
The country is founded on abstract principles: freedom and justice for all, equal rights, limiting the power of each segment of government, representative democracy, etc. There is nothing substantial in the founding vision or documents of the country which in any way depends on the principles of Christianity, and in fact the separation of church and state is a key principle which keeps America from becoming just another theocracy.
While it's true that most of the population is Christian and has been all along, that is not the same thing as saying the country is founded on Christianity.
by HasntBeen on May 27th, 2009
Factotum in what ways exactly?
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 27th, 2009
Laws inhibiting gun purchases, taxes (keeping your own money is a freedom most people are fond of), what size of toilet tank you can purchase, how fuel-efficient your car must be, whether you wear a seat-belt or not, university speech codes, and whatever else I haven't thought of.
by Factotum on May 27th, 2009
Many of our principles owe a lot to Christianity, but we aren't a Christian nation and were never meant to be.
by Factotum on May 27th, 2009
I'm not clear what exactly is owed to Christianity... what part of "Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from our sins" is reflected in the notions of personal responsibility, equal rights, freedom and justice for all, limited government, separation of church and state, etc.? I just don't see it.
Christianity has one truly distinguishing characteristic as a belief system -- it's theory of redemption. I find no place in the Constitution or other documents which in any way refer to or are based on this principle of redemption. All other "Christian" ideas are present in most religions as well as many forms of secular philosophies. Christianity doesn't own them, can't claim to have originated them, and can't be cited as the basis for them.
by HasntBeen on May 27th, 2009
It would be inaccurate to claim that they owned some of these ideas but they did bring them along with them when they founded the country. Augustine's 'De Civitate Dei', for example.
.
I do agree that Christians don't hold copyright, but it's not as though the founders all majored in Comparative Religion either.
by Factotum on May 27th, 2009
Sure, they brought these ideas with them, but they're not Christian ideas... they're ideas that have developed throughout history and propagated around the world. The time was right for the confluence of these ideas to produce a new kind of government, something quite novel at the time -- and something completely unrelated to the history of Christian-dominated governments or Christian theological principles or Christian "culture"... the *memes* started America, not Christianity. These radical, liberal ideas got together, took over some minds, and created a nation.
Scroll forward 200 years, where Christians are starting to feel they are losing power, and they're making a bunch of noise about how they get credit for these ideas and aren't getting adequate respect. It's... absurd.
by HasntBeen on May 28th, 2009
Factotum the only one of your list of freedoms that is actually a freedom is gun ownership, and no is saying you can't own, you just must own responsibly.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 28th, 2009
Agreed, Austinius. Other than the word 'creator', there is nothing in the Constitution that would define it as a Christian document. The constitution was intended to create freedom and an even ground for all men, regardless of creed, color or religion.
by Rufus_T_Firefly on May 28th, 2009
Fine.
.
Freedom of Speech: Many campuses have speech codes. Nearly all of the staff and decision makers are liberal, vote Democrat.
Freedom of the Press: Above speech codes also cover the campus newspapers.
Freedom of Religion: School officials interfering with students who pray (yeah, it's happened).
The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which essentially says I don't have to make my laundry list exclusively from the Constitution in the first place.
.
McCain/Feingold is a bi-partisan* bill that infringes the right to free speech.
.
Abortion protesters (NOT my friends) are prohibited from getting close to people who intend to have abortions despite having the right to free speech and the right to freely assemble. While I support women who are trying to get abortions, this doesn't seem quite legal.
_______________________
*Latin for 'twice as stupid'
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
But as long as I'm defending this point, what are your examples of Bible-thumpers attempting to encroach on everyone else's right?
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
HB, I agree that the ideas are not innately Christian. And indeed it gets up my nose when people claim that our Nation is Christian. It's not. But it largely was and it's not unreasonable to say so. The Constitution was crafted by a majority of Christians and was done in keeping with what they understood to be 'right', while preventing the possibility of Theocracy - that is to say, keeping Christianity safe for other Christians (and other-others).
.
Christian memes pretty much ARE Christianity. Well, there's also this book they tote around but really it's not widely read.
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
Well I don't want to take Austinius' platform too much, because that's not my main argument, but the gay marriage fight is currently the most salient point where Bible-thumping is directly interfering with the rights of others. But, in the past, the Bible has been used to justify other forms of oppression, including slavery and the second-class status of women.
by HasntBeen on May 28th, 2009
lol@' - now with Sobriquet Plus'!
.
I must take issue with the idea that gays have the right to marry. They never have. But they will and it will be when the majority of people are ok with it. Soon but not yet.
.
The incidents that appear to have given gays the right to marry (not including the various legal contracts short of marriage in which California was a leader) were court cases that were appealed or superseded by legal means.
.
There really is such a thing as an activist judge and they really are bad news. By trying to force the issue (with a 5-4 ruling) they generated a lot of ill will towards gay people. Had they not, CA would likely have been among the first states to legalize it. Now they almost certainly won't be.
.
While it is certainly true that religious people tended to vote for CA's most recent amendment it is a mistake to think that all of them did or that there weren't non-Christians who also voted for it. I am one of them.
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
On what basis should gays be denied the right to marry? I disagree completely with the notion that it's up for popular vote. What has been happening is that their rights -- granted by the constitution -- have been abridged since the founding, and that wrong is now being corrected. Just as blacks' rights and women's rights were always implied by the principle of freedom, so have gay rights always been implied. The fact that the majority of the populace is too embedded in their conditioned attitudes to see this does not mean it has not been there from the start.
By far the most truly "conservative" attitude is to conserve the abstract principles on which the country was founded -- freedom and equal rights for all. Anything which abridges that needs powerful justification, and "most people don't like it" doesn't even get on the scale of adequateness.
by HasntBeen on May 28th, 2009
Freedom of Speech: Many campuses have speech codes. Nearly all of the staff and decision makers are liberal, vote Democrat.
.
Wrong. Fire's The Torch a CONSERVATIVE publication syas that UC Berkley's speech "policies do not explicitly prohibit large quantities of protected expression." And that's the liberal mecca, is it not? But I guess that's enough to push the lie.
Freedom of the Press: Above speech codes also cover the campus newspapers.
.
Yes they do. :)
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 28th, 2009
Freedom of Religion: School officials interfering with students who pray (yeah, it's happened).
.
I'm sure it has, but let's be real here.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/pray_protest2.htm
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/prayer.html
Just a few actual examples of people trying to force payer into public schools.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 28th, 2009
The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which essentially says I don't have to make my laundry list exclusively from the Constitution in the first place.
.
OK so we both admit that people have rights not directly granted by the constitution.
.
McCain/Feingold is a bi-partisan* bill that infringes the right to free speech.
.
Are you talking about the finance reform bill? Trying to prevent businesses from buying elections? How does that pertain to free speech?
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 28th, 2009
Abortion protesters (NOT my friends) are prohibited from getting close to people who intend to have abortions despite having the right to free speech and the right to freely assemble. While I support women who are trying to get abortions, this doesn't seem quite legal.
.
Abortion protesters on BOTH sides aren't allowed near each other for fear of violence. Violence being the antipathy to free speech, and all.
.
In conclusion only the issue of prayer in school has any validity and your assertion that it has happened, carries less weight with me simply because I have documented proof that conservatives push on that front as well. So any other charges you'd like me to invalidate?
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 28th, 2009
HB, I'm not sure but I think we had this conversation before. Gays have historically been denied the right to marry across civilizations and millennia. It is only in the past 50 years that gays have had access to marriage. All well and good, but it is a radical change happening very quickly. Indeed, it wasn't more than twenty years ago that gays started having civil unions in the US.
.
I understand that it seems obvious to you that gays should have equal access to marriage. Was it obvious to you when you were ten? Twenty?
.
It is not obvious to a significant number of Americans. Until it is, forcing the issue is going to be messy.
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
I gave you examples which you refute imperfectly. FIRE may well have said Berkley's speech "policies do not explicitly prohibit large quantities of protected expression," but that doesn't mean they don't implicitly prohibit large quantities or explicitly prohibit small quantities of protected speech. The finance reform bill muzzles anyone not affiliated with 'official' news agencies on the day before an election. That is a loss of free speech, pure and simple.
.
If you really want to believe that the only people with any interest in abridging other people's rights are Bible-thumpers and that none of my examples 'count' I don't see how I can convince you otherwise.
by Factotum on May 28th, 2009
Re: gay marriage... I completely recognize the practical reality of what you're saying. But practicality is only one aspect of the matter: the other aspect is vision and commitment to principle. Once someone *sees*, they are obliged to act. That's all that's going on here -- those who see are acting, those who do not see are resisting. The game is to increase the number of people who see, and remaining silent isn't likely to be effective at that.
"All is well" said the watchman.
by HasntBeen on May 29th, 2009
Austinius I'm curious how a political minority such as the Fundamentalist Christians could dictate polices.
by Thunder_Kiss_65 on May 30th, 2009
Thunder: christians aren't a minority, they're a majority.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 30th, 2009
"bigoted" bible thumping conservatives" That group is the Fundamentalist Christians they are a minority.
by Thunder_Kiss_65 on May 30th, 2009
Thunder: See there's our difference. You assume that "bigoted bible thumping conservatives" is only fundies. It's not.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 30th, 2009
I think it's time to count the separate sub-threads within this thread, and perhaps convene a committee to split them out into separate conversations :)
by HasntBeen on May 30th, 2009
I don't give a damn what Christians think on the other hand I could care less if Gays get the right to marry. IF your so called majority say that Gay marriage is illegal so what. I'm more worried that the government is selling my grandchild's future.
by Thunder_Kiss_65 on May 30th, 2009
I second the motion.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 30th, 2009
Thunder: the government was accused of selling my parents future back in the 50's. Then in the 70's they were accused of selling my future. Now they're being accused of selling our grandkids futures. It's all hog wash.
by ConservativelyLiberal on May 30th, 2009
The richest people don't seem to much care as long as they get the power and money and keep the rest of us slaving for them at the lowest wages they can pay and still keep people working for them.
That aside our founding fathers surely didn't envision a nation where everyone could horde guns the way they do now. They didn't picture it that way at all. They wanted a strong army to defend us all and when the constitution was written they would have never put the gun clause in had they known what this nation would turn into. Back then we had a VERY weak army and that's why the gun clause was in it. Now we have the worlds strongest army and still have the same useless clause and the entire reasoning has changed to the argument of criminality, crime, etc.
Want to change it, do two things.. Keep religion OUT of our political arena and change the gun laws that allow anyone to horde guns to the point that we have several paramilitary groups that someday will rip us apart into waring tribes.
by Legend In Your Own Mind on August 5th, 2009