New GOP Tactic: Encourage revolution via billboard.

[Serafine666]

There is nothing sinister about that, FDR served for three terms, so it is unsurprising that five justices died or retired while his adminstration was in power. The Republicans took no action to reign in rampant speculation, which new technology allowed to reach an unprecedented height (in the 1929 crash), and they paid an appropriate price for that folly; 23 years out of office. In any case he started with a 7:2 ratio of Republican to Democrat apointed judges and most of the new deal legislation was passed late in his first term. I would note that a similar 7:2 ratio of Republican to Democrat appointments has persisted since 1976, so any claim that the Supreme Court has been favouring the Democrats is pretty ludicrous.

Amount means far less than impact. There were only a couple rulings against FDR before his "court packing" scheme and his appointment of judges but they severely damaged the entire New Deal. Rulings that validated the New Deal started happening after FDR's appointments and after he proposed packing the court with extra justices to dilute the impact of the justices that were ruling against him. I am not alleging anything sinister or evil because ultimately, FDR took an entirely legal route but it is undeniable that rulings favorable to him happened after his proposal and his appointments. I have no doubt that if Bush had replaced 5 of the justices and right after, they began ruling in his favor, there would be quite a few people noting the amazing coincidence.

Ah, so the economic liberalisation of China, Russia, Europe (particularly the East, but to a lesser extent the Wst), much of the rest of the Far East and significant parts of Africa is causing the collapse? This movement towards the free market is of course much greater in size and scope than the marginal shift of the US towards socialism. It is interesting to see you blaming a shift towards free markets for 'the collapse', I had thought you were promoting capitalism as a general principle, but you seem to be saying that the US should be Libertarian and everywhere would be better to stay socialist or communist. Of course there would be a twisted logic to that from a purely US-selfish perspective, in that economic liberalisation in the rest of the world has been a prime enabler of globalisation draining away US industry and jobs.

You're right... I was not specific enough. What I meant was that the change in the United States that you refer to (it moving towards slightly more socialist policies) is what is causing the collapse of the United States, not making its economy stronger.

Gilded, after gilt, as in gold plating. I thought you were supposed to be studying history? It isn't 'so-called', it's the standard term for the last quarter of the 19th century in the US.

I know what "gilded" means, Starglider. I also know that it was not known as the "Guilded Age" until Mark Twain joint-wrote a book with that title labeling it as such. It was not known that way at the time.

You will get zero traction on this site with the assumption that the US Constitution is some wonderful ideal of government.

I'm sure I won't but not because of the lack of merit to the assumption.

It is in fact very outdated and archaic, compared to the constitution of many other countries, and its laws must stand on individual merit, not because the founding fathers are your personal heroes.

What part, specifically, is outdated? Freedom of speech? Of press? Of religion To assemble peaceably? To petition the government for redress? To keep and bear arms? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Protection against self-incrimination? Guarantee of trial by jury? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? Ban on slavery? Institution of income taxes? Voting rights for women and those 18 and older? Equal application of the law to every citizen? I'm interested to hear your reasoning.
Also, who told you that the founding fathers are my personal heroes? I don't recall saying that.

[Starglider]

I know what "gilded" means, Starglider. I also know that it was not known as the "Guilded Age" until Mark Twain joint-wrote a book with that title labeling it as such. It was not known that way at the time.

You only know that because it happens to be at the top of the wikipedia entry for that term (which you misspelt, again). In fact it has become quite apparent that you have negligible knowledge of history, and that you merely assumed that the post-reconstruction period must be a paragon of prosperity and stability, because that's what your libertarian axioms tell you. As with creationists, reality is secondary to faith, and any evidence that seems to contract the Self-Evidently True Axioms must be dismissed as quickly and quietly as possible. You are desperately scrabbling around for ways to defend statements you made in willful ignorance of the facts - I'm pretty sure I never sunk that low even when I sincerely believed that 'free markets can fix everything'. At this point I think I can leave it to the actual historians to drive home the inherent futility of your approach.

[Serafine666]

What delusional alternate reality are you inhabiting now? I assume you believe the Long Depression and the 1882 recession, the second and third longest recessions in history after the Great Depression, are evil lies confabulated by a vast omnipotent conspiracy of liberal historians? As for the 'panics' that occured every five years or so, they weren't Great Depression scale but they were more serious than most 20th century recessions, so how can that possibly be described as a 'period of tranquility'?

I did not call it a "period of tranquility," first off. As to the Long Depression, it is now believed to have bottomed out and started ascending again in 1875 ("The view that a single recession lasted from 1873 to 1896 or 1897 is not supported by most modern reviews of the period. It has even been suggested that the trough of this business cycle may have occurred as early as 1875."; a quote from your citation) and the 1882 recession is one about which we know very little but is regarded as less severe than the 1873 one ("In terms of severity, according to Victor Zarnowitz, indexes of business activity show that the recession was not as severe as the declines in 1873, 1893, and 1921" and, as noted above, "It has even been suggested that the trough of this business cycle may have occurred as early as 1875.").

[Yona]

@Serafine666

Well, you can tap dance all you want with semantics and what if's. But the bottom line is that your party has been hijacked by nut balls, racists, and just generally crazy fucktards.

If there are any real Republicans, Conservatives or what ever you want to call them out there,... they've hidden themselves well. Probably for self preservation, because they've seen what's happening.

The current crop of GOP leadership, rising stars, etc, are either so criminal ( Phil Gramm, and others)they deserve long prison terms, or so freaking crazy ( Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) they deserve long Hospital stays. Either way, the middle of the road Republicans had better get their collective heads out of their collective asses and take their party back soon and start working FOR THIS COUNTRY instead of for themselves.

It almost too late!

[Samuel]

You're right... I was not specific enough. What I meant was that the change in the United States that you refer to (it moving towards slightly more socialist policies) is what is causing the collapse of the United States, not making its economy stronger.

Given that many other countries are more statist and stable I doubt that explanation.

It was not known that way at the time.

So? We use BC here all the time.

I'm sure I won't but not because of the lack of merit to the assumption.

We had a civil war 68 years from its adoption. Come to think of it the government was pretty light until WW1. Is there any evidence that the American system (2 body-congress, powerful president, written constitution) is better?

What part, specifically, is outdated? Freedom of speech? Of press? Of religion To assemble peaceably? To petition the government for redress? To keep and bear arms? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Protection against self-incrimination? Guarantee of trial by jury? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? Ban on slavery? Institution of income taxes? Voting rights for women and those 18 and older? Equal application of the law to every citizen? I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

Almost all of them. They are extremely vague rules that have to be interpreted by the courts. There is no reason you couldn't simply make more explicit rules and constantly update them. After all, 1,3,6,7,10 and 13 are notable for the degree of interpretation that can be applied. The law does not apply equally to all citizens- religious exemptions for example.

[Serafine666]

Well, you can tap dance all you want with semantics and what if's. But the bottom line is that your party has been hijacked by nut balls, racists, and just generally crazy fucktards.

Not much of a "bottom line", Yona. It is true that it has been hijacked by people who are useless in advancing a good cause (which I think I've admitted) but whether they are insane and/or racists is up for grabs.

If there are any real Republicans, Conservatives or what ever you want to call them out there,... they've hidden themselves well. Probably for self preservation, because they've seen what's happening.

No kidding.

The current crop of GOP leadership, rising stars, etc, are either so criminal ( Phil Gramm, and others)they deserve long prison terms, or so freaking crazy ( Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) they deserve long Hospital stays. Either way, the middle of the road Republicans had better get their collective heads out of their collective asses and take their party back soon and start working FOR THIS COUNTRY instead of for themselves.

It almost too late!

Almost! But not just yet.

[Serafine666]

Given that many other countries are more statist and stable I doubt that explanation.

I'm certain because it's utterly implausible on the face of it. Yet even the Long Depression and various panics were due to dumb things the government did like taking the country off and on the gold standard based (apparently) on a whim. While its length and severity may have been mildly overstated, events like the Long Depression didn't come out of the failure of capitalism but because the government fiddled around with the currency. So it seems reasonable to conclude that if a government that was a major factor in severe economic downturns gains more economic power, it would be harmful to the economy. Does that make any more sense?

So? We use BC here all the time.

Yeah, that was sort of a silly point, wasn't it? Sorry.

We had a civil war 68 years from its adoption. Come to think of it the government was pretty light until WW1. Is there any evidence that the American system (2 body-congress, powerful president, written constitution) is better?

That question is legitimate but doesn't mean much unless you compare it to something. Is it better than the governmental stability of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies to the south of us? I'd submit yes. Better than the French, Belgian, and English mandates in Africa? Yes, certainly. England? France? Spain? Russia? Germany? The former vast powers of Europe that no longer exist? So far, yeah, just a bit more stability and financial solvency in our first 200 years than any given period of 200 years for them (that I am aware of). So yeah, I'd generally say that the American system has proven better at keeping problems tamped down and below the scale of revolutions, mass bloodlettings, and invasions that have plagued other countries. The only exception was over in about 5 years.

Almost all of them. They are extremely vague rules that have to be interpreted by the courts. There is no reason you couldn't simply make more explicit rules and constantly update them. After all, 1,3,6,7,10 and 13 are notable for the degree of interpretation that can be applied. The law does not apply equally to all citizens- religious exemptions for example.

Well, who would constantly "update" them and what would constitute a version that was "better"? And with the rules subject to constant "update" by the government, what mechanism would prevent the government from "updating" all the rules to increase their own power? Rules could have been made more explicit but a situation where the term "militia" would cease to cover the entire population was impossible for them to imagine; subsequently, the 2nd Amendment was constantly "improved" to made it harder for what the Founders regarded as the "militia" to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment has been "improved" as well to make certain speech dubbed "hate speech" subject to legal penalty--and that was just due to the clever machinations of a few Congresses and judges. I feel forced to ask again: why would a situation where the rules can be constantly "updated" make them more secure and protective?

EDIT: Wait a second... 13? Ya mean the amendment that explicitly states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." can be interpreted easily? HOW?

[Samuel]

Is it better than the governmental stability of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies to the south of us? I'd submit yes. Better than the French, Belgian, and English mandates in Africa? Yes, certainly.

They aren't comparable- Australia or Canada fits better and even that is rather poor.

So far, yeah, just a bit more stability and financial solvency in our first 200 years than any given period of 200 years for them (that I am aware of).

England since the Glorious Revolution, about 321 years beats us.

So yeah, I'd generally say that the American system has proven better at keeping problems tamped down and below the scale of revolutions, mass bloodlettings, and invasions that have plagued other countries. The only exception was over in about 5 years.

Invasions are generally not fixed by government systems. As for bloodlettings and revolutions we have had sporadic internal violence. It has been less than other countries, but it is hard to tell how much is simply because the situation in the US is different.

Also the American Civil War is quite an exception- it holds the record as the bloodiest conflict the nation ever experienced.

Well, who would constantly "update" them and what would constitute a version that was "better"?

The same people whose job it is to do so now. Or you get the legislature to craft new editions.

And with the rules subject to constant "update" by the government, what mechanism would prevent the government from "updating" all the rules to increase their own power?

They do that now. What stops them is the fact that they are elected officials and can be voted out if they are too blatant.

Rules could have been made more explicit but a situation where the term "militia" would cease to cover the entire population was impossible for them to imagine; subsequently, the 2nd Amendment was constantly "improved" to made it harder for what the Founders regarded as the "militia" to keep and bear arms.

So? It might end up being eliminated. Or it might be changed to the right of individuals to own personal fire arms.

The First Amendment has been "improved" as well to make certain speech dubbed "hate speech" subject to legal penalty--and that was just due to the clever machinations of a few Congresses and judges.

I once again fail to see the problem.

I feel forced to ask again: why would a situation where the rules can be constantly "updated" make them more secure and protective?

Because having the rules being unchanging does not protect you. Your own examples show that they are updated informally- make the system explicit means we can actually control what is going on.

Wait a second... 13? Ya mean the amendment that explicitly states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." can be interpreted easily? HOW?

Prision labor comes to mind, but I actually meant example 13- equal apllication of the law to all citizens.

[Serafine666]

Is it better than the governmental stability of the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies to the south of us? I'd submit yes. Better than the French, Belgian, and English mandates in Africa? Yes, certainly.

They aren't comparable- Australia or Canada fits better and even that is rather poor.

So far, yeah, just a bit more stability and financial solvency in our first 200 years than any given period of 200 years for them (that I am aware of).

England since the Glorious Revolution, about 321 years beats us.

So yeah, I'd generally say that the American system has proven better at keeping problems tamped down and below the scale of revolutions, mass bloodlettings, and invasions that have plagued other countries. The only exception was over in about 5 years.

Invasions are generally not fixed by government systems. As for bloodlettings and revolutions we have had sporadic internal violence. It has been less than other countries, but it is hard to tell how much is simply because the situation in the US is different.

Also the American Civil War is quite an exception- it holds the record as the bloodiest conflict the nation ever experienced.

I admit, all of that is true, Samuel. My overall point, however, is that how the United States stacks up against other government depends upon which other governments you compare with. My examples may not all have been perfect but they still illustrated the point that the other side of the comparison can mean everything.

The same people whose job it is to do so now. Or you get the legislature to craft new editions.

That's how it already is... the people whose job it is to do so now are the courts; the legislature crafts new editions.

They do that now. What stops them is the fact that they are elected officials and can be voted out if they are too blatant.

Yet again, you sound like you're describing things as they currently are, not an alternative to what presently exists.

So? It might end up being eliminated. Or it might be changed to the right of individuals to own personal fire arms.

But the point is that it would afford no protection at all if it could be played with every 2 years or every 6 years (the terms of the House and Senate respectively). A right that can be altered at whim (emphatically not the current case) is not a right.

I once again fail to see the problem.

Simply put, people who say the "right things" don't need to be protected from the government; people who say the "wrong things" do. What is termed "hate speech" is clearly the "wrong thing" and thus, is meant to be covered by the right of free speech that the First Amendment bestows.

Because having the rules being unchanging does not protect you.

It protects you better than rules that are subjects to constant change. Rules that can be constantly changed to ensnare the politically inconvenient are a standard feature of a tyranny.

Your own examples show that they are updated informally- make the system explicit means we can actually control what is going on.

How would explicitness provide better control than presently exists? You seem to imagine a situation where the rights were originally more explicit but can still be altered as easily as they are when they were originally less explicit.

Prision labor comes to mind, but I actually meant example 13- equal apllication of the law to all citizens.

So Amendment 14. Yes, that is among the most problematic amendments because of poor wording. Then again, the First Amendment was apparently poorly-worded as well because, with a single sentence from a letter, the Supreme Court decided that a right against any government regulation of religion could be interpreted to call for government regulation of religion. It is true that such "evolution" was beyond the ability of the original writers to even imagine but how does what you're proposing fix this problem?

[Darth Wong]

You will get zero traction on this site with the assumption that the US Constitution is some wonderful ideal of government.

I'm sure I won't but not because of the lack of merit to the assumption.

Actually, that was obviously a challenge to you to provide some logical argument to support that assumption. If you cannot do that, then the assumption does lack merit. Did you honestly not realize any of this, or were you being deliberately evasive?

There are many good arguments to be made against the assumed absolute supremacy of the US Constitution, such as the fact that no other country on the planet has it and yet many of those countries are quite functional and prosperous, often exceeding the US in some measure or other.

[Gil Hamilton]

So for you, what's the difference between deceiving someone and creating a false or misleading impression... which is designed to deceive someone? As to the administration's deceptiveness, wouldn't your criticism apply to every politician who, knowing that their information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, presents their assertion as being factual? It would seem that, based on what you're describing, the Bush Administration was no different than the typical politician; if this is incorrect, how do you distinguish between the bad faith of the Bush administration and the normal political practice of representing probable as beyond doubt?

When most politicians do this, they don't use their bad faith to start a war that wrecks a country and kills several thousand soldiers, now do they? You talk as if the Bush Administrations lying was as trivial using grey areas in local zoning laws to let your buddy build a boat house on his property where they're probably shouldn't be one. But, hey, it's only human lives, right, all politicians do it.

[Serafine666]

Actually, that was obviously a challenge to you to provide some logical argument to support that assumption. If you cannot do that, then the assumption does lack merit. Did you honestly not realize any of this, or were you being deliberately evasive?

I honestly did not realize that and I apologize for my being dense.

There are many good arguments to be made against the assumed absolute supremacy of the US Constitution, such as the fact that no other country on the planet has it and yet many of those countries are quite functional and prosperous, often exceeding the US in some measure or other.

Partially by accident (I admit to having not carefully picked my exact words), I don't think I said I thought of the US Constitution as being inherently superior or supreme except in specific instances (some of which were erroneous, I admit). I simply regard it as a very effective governing document that has propelled a country that lacks a several-century history into the same general club as nations like Russia, England/Great Britain, and France which have had sustained governments in place for a very long time.

[Serafine666]

When most politicians do this, they don't use their bad faith to start a war that wrecks a country and kills several thousand soldiers, now do they? You talk as if the Bush Administrations lying was as trivial using grey areas in local zoning laws to let your buddy build a boat house on his property where they're probably shouldn't be one. But, hey, it's only human lives, right, all politicians do it.

Oh, of course the deception can be less or more consequential depending upon the circumstances; I hardly meant to argue that a deception about WMD which propelled the United States into a war costing thousands of lives is equivalent to a deception about your position on a social issue (which is the favorite form of political deception in the United States, it seems). I meant my question in more general terms: if a lie is synonymous with deception, how do you determine which type of deception is a "lie" (which is a more loaded word than "deception") and which is a less-loaded "deception"?

[Samuel]

I admit, all of that is true, Samuel. My overall point, however, is that how the United States stacks up against other government depends upon which other governments you compare with. My examples may not all have been perfect but they still illustrated the point that the other side of the comparison can mean everything.

Yes, but it is possible the US would have done well with any reasonable government model- we had a large growth potential and our enemies were distant. Any government that was flexible might have been able to do well.

That's how it already is... the people whose job it is to do so now are the courts; the legislature crafts new editions.

Actually the states are involved and have to ratify the changes.

Yet again, you sound like you're describing things as they currently are, not an alternative to what presently exists.

Not really. Currently we have "equal protection of the law" mean that corporations are counted as individuals. If it was explicatly written out we could get the right of corporations to be treated as individuals removed without having to find a test case or dump the entire amendment.

In short we could have a loophole in how the system works corrected by congress instead of being dumped in a legal no mans land where it is no ones responsibility.

But the point is that it would afford no protection at all if it could be played with every 2 years or every 6 years (the terms of the House and Senate respectively). A right that can be altered at whim (emphatically not the current case) is not a right.

It can still be altered under the current system. It just is harder and in such a way that gives more power to smaller states.

Simply put, people who say the "right things" don't need to be protected from the government; people who say the "wrong things" do. What is termed "hate speech" is clearly the "wrong thing" and thus, is meant to be covered by the right of free speech that the First Amendment bestows.

Just because it is the wrong thing doesn't mean it should be protected- there is plenty of wrong speech that is reasonably banned. As long as it can be shown the social benefit outweighs the cost and the least restrictive and most tightly focused means were used than they can clamp down on it.

It protects you better than rules that are subjects to constant change. Rules that can be constantly changed to ensnare the politically inconvenient are a standard feature of a tyranny.

Actually we had that under the second administration. You couldn't criticize government officials... except the VP.

Also, I'd like to see an example. Tyrannies are noted for not having to give reasons for why they were arresting you or just branding you an enemy of the state.

How would explicitness provide better control than presently exists? You seem to imagine a situation where the rights were originally more explicit but can still be altered as easily as they are when they were originally less explicit.

Because the NRA can shut up about liberals clamping down on their gun rights if it is written into the constitution. If it requires 2/3 vote of both houses to change they can be reasonably certain it is safe.

In short voting blocks don't have to be constantly mobilized because they can get their goals realized instead of... the stupid cold war over abortion where rights are chipped away bit by bit and people fight the whole thing tooth and nail because it can be changed in a single moment.

If the legislature had power over it, it could be changed, but the people you voted for could have an actual affect.

It is true that such "evolution" was beyond the ability of the original writers to even imagine but how does what you're proposing fix this problem?

Because if the wording is too vague the constitution gets rewritten until it is clear? The guiding document may end up being alot more technical, but it would be much clear in what the government actually does.

[Gil Hamilton]

Oh, of course the deception can be less or more consequential depending upon the circumstances; I hardly meant to argue that a deception about WMD which propelled the United States into a war costing thousands of lives is equivalent to a deception about your position on a social issue (which is the favorite form of political deception in the United States, it seems). I meant my question in more general terms: if a lie is synonymous with deception, how do you determine which type of deception is a "lie" (which is a more loaded word than "deception") and which is a less-loaded "deception"?

Going by your post that I quoted, this wasn't the point you were making. Before, you were asserting that ALL politicians use information that isn't (even remotely) concrete as though it were gospel canon and asking what the difference was. The difference is the magnitude of consequences of that lie and what the Bush Administration did is somewhat above and beyond the sort of thing some sleazy city councilperson might lie about.

Besides, you know what synonymous means, right? If "lie" and "deception" are synonymous, then there is no distinction, one is as good as the other and you don't have a leg to stand on if someone calls your "deception" a "lie". I'm curious why you think calling something "deception" is somehow better than calling something a "lie". Is something fundamentally different based on the label you stick on the jar? Really, with the WMD thing, they deserve every bit of loaded words that can be spit at them.

[Serafine666]

Yes, but it is possible the US would have done well with any reasonable government model- we had a large growth potential and our enemies were distant. Any government that was flexible might have been able to do well.

I can agree with that; it seems like an entirely reasonable conclusion to draw.

Actually the states are involved and have to ratify the changes.

More specifically, 3/4 of the state legislators.

Not really. Currently we have "equal protection of the law" mean that corporations are counted as individuals. If it was explicatly written out we could get the right of corporations to be treated as individuals removed without having to find a test case or dump the entire amendment.

In short we could have a loophole in how the system works corrected by Congress instead of being dumped in a legal no mans land where it is no ones responsibility.

We could also modify incorporation laws so that Congress isn't fiddling around with a right enjoyed by the people in general when trying to target the enemy of the week.

It can still be altered under the current system. It just is harder and in such a way that gives more power to smaller states.

Regardless of the fact that smaller states have power, the virtue is that it is harder to alter. Rights should be well-nigh impossible to play around with because a right that is hard to touch is a right that is all the more secure.

Just because it is the wrong thing doesn't mean it should be protected- there is plenty of wrong speech that is reasonably banned. As long as it can be shown the social benefit outweighs the cost and the least restrictive and most tightly focused means were used than they can clamp down on it.

The only flaw is that clamping down on the "wrong thing" that is popular to smash for the moment is that it creates a precedent for dealing with speech that offends by narrowly and least-restrictively crushing it with the power of the government.

Actually we had that under the second administration. You couldn't criticize government officials... except the VP.

I'm assuming you mean the Alien Act and Sedition Act passed during John Adams' administration? That sort of proves my point that a right that the government can restrict on a whim is less secure.

Also, I'd like to see an example. Tyrannies are noted for not having to give reasons for why they were arresting you or just branding you an enemy of the state.

They don't have to but they always do. Stalin was great at it: if you were an obstacle to one of the "Five Year Plans" he came up with every year, you were an "enemy of the People" and he'd send in loyal soldiers to burn your fields, steal your food, and starve you to death by the millions to make an example of you (in case you were wondering, I'm referring to Stalin's campaign against the "kulaks" of Ukraine).

Because the NRA can shut up about liberals clamping down on their gun rights if it is written into the constitution. If it requires 2/3 vote of both houses to change they can be reasonably certain it is safe.

In short voting blocks don't have to be constantly mobilized because they can get their goals realized instead of... the stupid cold war over abortion where rights are chipped away bit by bit and people fight the whole thing tooth and nail because it can be changed in a single moment.

If the legislature had power over it, it could be changed, but the people you voted for could have an actual affect.

Words cannot convey just how much I'd like it to be that way. In fact, it was meant to be that way: the possibility of the judiciary being able to invent rights and restrict others was not imagined since it had neither the sword (the power of the Executive) nor the purse (the power of the Legislative) to enforce its whims. I have to hearken back to the famous phrase of James Madison (I believe), however, when he said in essence that "If men were angels, we would need no government." In theory, the people have immense control over the Legislative branch but you can have 150 million people marching in the streets but when election time swings around, maybe 5 senators and 30 representatives are replaced which barely alters anything at all except which political party has power for the next few years. We presently have a system where the theory never seems to get fulfilled so I'm not sure how great it would be if we just threw more power to the folks whose goals aren't noticeably altered by a few of their colleagues disappearing.

Because if the wording is too vague the constitution gets rewritten until it is clear? The guiding document may end up being alot more technical, but it would be much clear in what the government actually does.

Samuel, I repeat again: it's impossible to put into words just how much I would love for things to be the way you want them. A governing document written restrictively to ensure that rights are ironclad and impossible to misinterpret would make us a better nation and remove a significant amount of the noise that distracts from extremely important matters like who will be responsible with the trillions of dollars passing through their hands or which people are the most likely to sends our soldiers to fight only when our national interests are directly and explicitly at stake. I just fear that your idea is not as possible as it is good.

[Serafine666]

Besides, you know what synonymous means, right? If "lie" and "deception" are synonymous, then there is no distinction, one is as good as the other and you don't have a leg to stand on if someone calls your "deception" a "lie".

I am well aware of the meaning of the word "synonymous", Gil. I am stating that they are synonymous because that seemed to be the point of CmdrWilkens when he quoted Mariam-Webster's at me (lower half of page 3); originally, my question was directed at him because I wasn't sure how he drew the line and sought clarification.

I'm curious why you think calling something "deception" is somehow better than calling something a "lie". Is something fundamentally different based on the label you stick on the jar? Really, with the WMD thing, they deserve every bit of loaded words that can be spit at them.

Regardless of what they deserve, yes, the label you stick on the jar means everything in propaganda (by which I mean the use of mass media to spread a certain message). Some words are more loaded than others because of their commonly-understood definition: most people, if told that someone "wasn't honest" or was trying to "deceive" them, would be upset but would become angry if they were told that they had been "lied" to. There is apparently no definitional difference between being deceived and being lied to but one term evokes a much stronger reaction than the other.

[Gil Hamilton]

Regardless of what they deserve, yes, the label you stick on the jar means everything in propaganda (by which I mean the use of mass media to spread a certain message). Some words are more loaded than others because of their commonly-understood definition: most people, if told that someone "wasn't honest" or was trying to "deceive" them, would be upset but would become angry if they were told that they had been "lied" to. There is apparently no definitional difference between being deceived and being lied to but one term evokes a much stronger reaction than the other.

Actually, I would think that plenty of people would be angry if they were being "deceived" as well, given that many people ARE angry about that very issue. So why do you want to sugar coat reality to protect George Bush?

[Serafine666]

Actually, I would think that plenty of people would be angry if they were being "deceived" as well, given that many people ARE angry about that very issue. So why do you want to sugar coat reality to protect George Bush?

Did you miss my previous statement that I was discussing a general principle rather than George Bush specifically? Before CmdrWilkens' correction, yes, I was discussing the Bush Administration specifically but afterwards, when it was no longer possible to argue about whether or not the Bush Administration technically lied, I decided to switch over to asking about how you distinguish between a situation in which one of the words is appropriate and a situation in which the other is. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about my pivot and if so, I apologize.
In short, I don't care about whether reality gets sugar-coated or not for the Bush Administration. I think the less loaded term "deceived" is more appropriate to the facts of Bush's specific case but this isn't because I favor euphemism; I just think "lie" is too strong and since either word can be accurately used, I prefer the one whose implied meaning is more accurate as well.

[CmdrWilkens]

So for you, what's the difference between deceiving someone and creating a false or misleading impression... which is designed to deceive someone? As to the administration's deceptiveness, wouldn't your criticism apply to every politician who, knowing that their information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, presents their assertion as being factual? It would seem that, based on what you're describing, the Bush Administration was no different than the typical politician; if this is incorrect, how do you distinguish between the bad faith of the Bush administration and the normal political practice of representing probable as beyond doubt?

So its taken a bit of time for me to get back to this and apologies there but I do want to highlight something you said above: knowing that their information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt

You've somehow decided that something is either deceptive or truthful beyond reasonable doubt which is the starting point I wanted to contend with. In the spectrum of ground truth versus assertion there is the whole range of response from telling the whole truth without pause and within total context to increasing lack of disclosure or outright fabrication up to the point we would call something a 100% lie. That politicians exaggerate or overstate the importance of truth in order to create an impression of reality is not something I wold dispute, the question is where does normal fall on the spectrum versus where did the Bush Administration fall on the spectrum.

Aside from fact checking sites that have made a point of distinguishing between exaggeration and bald faced un-truths I'll go with a very simple formula. The difference between deception (and a lie) and exaggeration lies in the degree to which the whole truth is contained, exaggeration, in my estimation, would fall somewhere in the 70% whole truth and upwards category and deception and fabrication as two categories of lying would fall in the 40-69% and <40% truthful realms. You average politician certainly exaggerates but I would hold the majority do not lie by that scale. Conversely the original point being discussed (the case for war) the was a clear and obvious counter argument that was not simply ignored but actively suppressed (see Plame, Valerie and Wilson, Joe) even after the fact. Folks who did know better were ordered quiet, opinions contrary to the desired word were ignored and evidence was presented solely in support of a predetermined case. I'd almost go so far as to say it falls in to my category of fabrication for the degree of suppression of dissenting viewpoint.

[Serafine666]

So its taken a bit of time for me to get back to this and apologies there...

Think nothing of it; you needn't apologize for the fact that you weren't obsessively watching a single thread on an online messageboard. Moreover, it was worth the wait.

...but I do want to highlight something you said above: knowing that their information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt

You've somehow decided that something is either deceptive or truthful beyond reasonable doubt which is the starting point I wanted to contend with. In the spectrum of ground truth versus assertion there is the whole range of response from telling the whole truth without pause and within total context to increasing lack of disclosure or outright fabrication up to the point we would call something a 100% lie. That politicians exaggerate or overstate the importance of truth in order to create an impression of reality is not something I would dispute, the question is where does normal fall on the spectrum versus where did the Bush Administration fall on the spectrum.

You're right that I seemed to be saying that something is either fully true or a deception; I apologize for my careless wording because that is not what I was trying to say. My attempted point was that politicians often represent uncertainty as being absolutely true and will reverse statistics to prove a point; to use sexual harassment as an example, a politician might say that the real story is not that 27% of women sexually harass men in the workplace but that 73% of women don't (I'm obviously making up the percentages out of thin air). Both statements are true and represent the same number but the second one conveys a totally different message which tends to obscure the other half of the story without actually omitting it. We generally do not regard this as lying although it is clearly formulated with the intent of deceiving the listeners... which bears close similarity to your second definition of "lie." That was what I was attempting to convey with my inexact wording; my apologies for the carelessness.

Aside from fact checking sites that have made a point of distinguishing between exaggeration and bald faced un-truths I'll go with a very simple formula. The difference between deception (and a lie) and exaggeration lies in the degree to which the whole truth is contained; exaggeration, in my estimation, would fall somewhere in the 70% whole truth and upwards category and deception and fabrication as two categories of lying would fall in the 40-69% and <40% truthful realms. You average politician certainly exaggerates but I would hold the majority do not lie by that scale. Conversely the original point being discussed (the case for war) the was a clear and obvious counter argument that was not simply ignored but actively suppressed (see Plame, Valerie and Wilson, Joe) even after the fact. Folks who did know better were ordered quiet, opinions contrary to the desired word were ignored and evidence was presented solely in support of a predetermined case. I'd almost go so far as to say it falls in to my category of fabrication for the degree of suppression of dissenting viewpoint.

You have a very good case, Commander, and one that I feel obligated to concede.
I'm not so sure about your point concerning Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. I'm wondering what you mean that the Bush Administration had "not simply ignored but actively suppressed" the counter-argument while citing two individuals who couldn't have cast any doubt. Wilson's investigations cast doubt on the assertions of the British government but neither he nor anyone else ever claimed that the British government had never said that they caught Saddam Hussein trying to purchase "yellow cake" uranium from Sudan. If I told you that Bobby had told me that he'd seen Suzy kissing Johnny and someone comes along and says that Bobby saw no such thing, was I lying when I said that Bobby told me that he had? Of course not and I wouldn't have any need to "suppress" the person because they aren't contradicting me.

[wolveraptor]

It can still be altered under the current system. It just is harder and in such a way that gives more power to smaller states.

Regardless of the fact that smaller states have power, the virtue is that it is harder to alter. Rights should be well-nigh impossible to play around with because a right that is hard to touch is a right that is all the more secure.

I dispute the notion that codifying rights and making them "inalterable" really affects the ability of lawmakers to abridge them. There have been many periods throughout American history in which key rights such as habeas corpus and freedom of speech and/or assembly have been taken away, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids it. Predictably, these periods were ones of war or economic turmoil. This leads me to believe that the security of our rights is more dependent on our security and prosperity as a people than it is on our Constitution or laws. An agitated populations can obviously be convinced to allow many trespasses onto what are supposed to be sacred rights. There are really too many examples to recount here.

[Serafine666]

I dispute the notion that codifying rights and making them "inalterable" really affects the ability of lawmakers to abridge them. There have been many periods throughout American history in which key rights such as habeas corpus and freedom of speech and/or assembly have been taken away, despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids it.

Actually, that is not correct. The Constitution permits Congress to suspend certain rights if "rebellion" or "the public safety" requires it. As Mike Wong points out in his review of Star Trek Insurrection, all countries have a "go to hell" clause; the clause for the United States is "clear and present danger."

Predictably, these periods were ones of war or economic turmoil. This leads me to believe that the security of our rights is more dependent on our security and prosperity as a people than it is on our Constitution or laws. An agitated populations can obviously be convinced to allow many trespasses onto what are supposed to be sacred rights. There are really too many examples to recount here.

I know I concentrated somewhat on the ease of alteration but the crux of my point was "a right that is hard to touch is a right that is all the more secure." This was meant as an argument against Samuel who (as I understood him) was arguing that if it's easy to "update" or alter a right, it is more secure than one that is difficult to alter.

[wolveraptor]

I know I concentrated somewhat on the ease of alteration but the crux of my point was "a right that is hard to touch is a right that is all the more secure." This was meant as an argument against Samuel who (as I understood him) was arguing that if it's easy to "update" or alter a right, it is more secure than one that is difficult to alter.

Right, but I disagree with both of you. I think rights are more likely to be secure during times of national safety and prosperity, and less likely to be secure during depression and war, regardless of how "hard to touch" they are.

[Serafine666]

Right, but I disagree with both of you. I think rights are more likely to be secure during times of national safety and prosperity, and less likely to be secure during depression and war, regardless of how "hard to touch" they are.

Well, then I'm sure we BOTH agree with that. However, without meaning to speak for Samuel, I think there was a reason we were confining the discussion to "are rights more or less secure when the government can alter them easily?"; the question sort of assumes that there isn't a national emergency that the government could take advantage of to ram through restrictions on rights. Of course, that a government can do so most easily when there is a crisis is so generally accepted that there was no need to restate it during our discussion.