Beef the Independent

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.

No offense taken, Angus.

Oh, btw, there is no reason or logic whatsoever behind my nickname of "Beef."  It was just something that popped into my head.  But it's funny to see alongside "Angus."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main school of thought these days regarding the Civil War (which I only took one class on in college) is that it began as a dispute over states-rights vs. federal control, but somehow, around 1863, ceased to be about states-rights, and became a "war to free the slaves."  How and why this change ocurred (and how the moral abolitionist movement became so powerful) is probably the focus of current scholarly debate on the subject.

If the Civil War remained a war over states' rights, I would argue that the Union would have lost its resolve, and today's South would be a loose confederation of independent states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or technology could slove the problem.  We could learn how to safely transplant fetuses.  With so many infertile couples out there, demand for transplanted fetuses would probably outpace demand for pregnancy terminations.  Sounds far-fetched, but so did organ transplant 60 years ago.

[angus]

angus
beef              

hadn't thought of it, but that's cool.  

To your history debate, if the nationalistic GOP not formed, California would, I'm quite certain, be among those looking to get out right about now.  No doubt we're better off with a strong union.

yes, technocracy can provide practical answers, but we'd still be left with the intrinsic questions.

[opebo]

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

I largely agree with you, particularly on social issues, though I don't believe in public schools of any kind - no need for vouchers, just privatize the whole thing.  So I guess I'm more libertarian.  Also I believe in an extreme 'Realist' foriegn policy.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I largely agree with you, particularly on social issues, though I don't believe in public schools of any kind - no need for vouchers, just privatize the whole thing.

Yeah, that'll go over real well.

Look at the mess they've made in some of the private schools around here.

[angus]

Pro-free trade, no ethical qualms with cocaine use, marijuana, gambling, aborting third-trimester foeti, prostitution, carrying around guns, whatever.  I think I may be opposed to slavery and forced prostitution, though, so I'm not a total liberal on social issues.  I also strongly oppose all capital punishment on moral grounds.

On economic matters, I'm a wee bit more moderate:  I like low taxes and abhore the thought of socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth and racial hiring quotas, but I do seriously believe in maintaining the best university and public schools system.  I'm rabidly opposed to vouchers, which take money away from schools that need it most and give money to schools who need it least.  And I strongly support maintaining a Navy and Army second to none.  And I emphatically (even vehemently) defend intellectual property rights.  

So it's the economic issues that keep me from being a Libertarian, but on the social issues I'm pretty much completely in line with the Libertarians.

I largely agree with you, particularly on social issues, though I don't believe in public schools of any kind - no need for vouchers, just privatize the whole thing.  So I guess I'm more libertarian.  Also I believe in an extreme 'Realist' foriegn policy.

A bit of an imperialist, are we?  Well, at least you're a libertarian one.  As might be said in another nation that reckons itself a major player:

chacun à son goût  

[dunn]

Beef, why don't you register at the fantasy elections (you can register as dem, rep, progressive, independent;  even Jesus party)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef, why don't you register at the fantasy elections (you can register as dem, rep, progressive, independent;  even Jesus party)

I see the fantasy elections forum, but how do I "register?"  Just by posting a topic?

Thanks!

[Gustaf]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

We're a soverign nation, your states aren't, now are they? I find it strange that a political unit can allow some members to kill its citizens, that's all. And I'd say it's slightly worse than allowing them to retain their own currencies...but that's me. If you favour letting the American states break off and be soverighn states then you have a case, but now not.

And, finally, I am trying to clean it, I really am.

you think the united states just appeared overnight?  It was a collection of loosely organized states between 1777 and 1789, much like today's EU, and the "Articles of Confederation" was the working document under which interstate commerce, etc, was regulated.  The specific issues we use for examples aside, it is telling that you do not realize which famous documents are the source of your own Union's constitution.  In fact, it was only under threat of being treated like a foreign power (tariffs and such) that Rhode Island reluctantly became the 13th state to ratify the constitution, and it only did so when its demand for a Bill of Rights was met.  And, in fact, there is no specific sanction in the constitution against leaving the Union, just as there is none in the Treaty of Maastricht against leaving.  As I have stated before, the legislature of South Carolina broke no written law when it decided to seccede, just as Germany, for example, would be breaking no written law if it decided to start printing Deutschmarks and using them.  

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose, n'est-ce pas, mon ami?

No, I did not think that the US appeared overnight. But it has no relevance to my argument. I would say that the US is NOW a nation, the EU is not. I cannot tell you what stand I would have taken on federalism in the late 18th century, but I can tell you my stands on it now.

If I understand you right and you are actually comparing the American constitution or the documents that laid behind it with the EU constitution, that's plain insulting to the former.

On seccession, it works both ways - there is no provision for leaving the Union so the common opnion here is that is can't be done. And according to the new constitution all member states have to use the Euro, making Sweden and other countries violating the constitution by having our own currencies.

[dunn]

Beef, why don't you register at the fantasy elections (you can register as dem, rep, progressive, independent;  even Jesus party)

I see the fantasy elections forum, but how do I "register?"  Just by posting a topic?

Thanks!

there is a register thread - just post there (my advice as a progressive:)  )

[angus]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

We're a soverign nation, your states aren't, now are they? I find it strange that a political unit can allow some members to kill its citizens, that's all. And I'd say it's slightly worse than allowing them to retain their own currencies...but that's me. If you favour letting the American states break off and be soverighn states then you have a case, but now not.

And, finally, I am trying to clean it, I really am.

you think the united states just appeared overnight?  It was a collection of loosely organized states between 1777 and 1789, much like today's EU, and the "Articles of Confederation" was the working document under which interstate commerce, etc, was regulated.  The specific issues we use for examples aside, it is telling that you do not realize which famous documents are the source of your own Union's constitution.  In fact, it was only under threat of being treated like a foreign power (tariffs and such) that Rhode Island reluctantly became the 13th state to ratify the constitution, and it only did so when its demand for a Bill of Rights was met.  And, in fact, there is no specific sanction in the constitution against leaving the Union, just as there is none in the Treaty of Maastricht against leaving.  As I have stated before, the legislature of South Carolina broke no written law when it decided to seccede, just as Germany, for example, would be breaking no written law if it decided to start printing Deutschmarks and using them.  

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose, n'est-ce pas, mon ami?

No, I did not think that the US appeared overnight. But it has no relevance to my argument. I would say that the US is NOW a nation, the EU is not. I cannot tell you what stand I would have taken on federalism in the late 18th century, but I can tell you my stands on it now.

If I understand you right and you are actually comparing the American constitution or the documents that laid behind it with the EU constitution, that's plain insulting to the former.

On seccession, it works both ways - there is no provision for leaving the Union so the common opnion here is that is can't be done. And according to the new constitution all member states have to use the Euro, making Sweden and other countries violating the constitution by having our own currencies.

I'm not sure you and I disagree on any of this except my speculations, but we're just looking at it from different perspectives.  Nevertheless, among the thousands of documents the founders of the European Coal and Steel Union poured through in the years leading up to its founding in 1957 were the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States.  The speculative part, the answer to which will not be known till after we're long dead, is that increased centralization in Brussels may be predicted by studying increased centralization in Washington.  

[Gustaf]

very tricky issue, beef.  I apologize if my earlier post seemed dismissive with regards to your beliefs.  In history class they taught us that there was only one issue in the 1800s with regards to states-rights vs. strong central government which could not be solved by the usual give and take of political debate.  Not sure whether I believe that, but, by analogy, late-term abortions may be today's issue which states' won't be allowed to decide for themselves.  Federalism is/was a fine balancing act, and once again it may be the overreaching arm of the GOP to the rescue.  I do not claim that this is a bad thing or a good thing.  Just thinking...

It makes little sense to have the states decided over abortion...on the other hand you already have them decideing over capital punishment...

just a bit more hypocrisy than I can sit still over from a man who campaigned rigorously against adoption of the european currency unit (among other enforcements from Brussels).  Clean your own yard before you make suggestions about mine, young man.

We're a soverign nation, your states aren't, now are they? I find it strange that a political unit can allow some members to kill its citizens, that's all. And I'd say it's slightly worse than allowing them to retain their own currencies...but that's me. If you favour letting the American states break off and be soverighn states then you have a case, but now not.

And, finally, I am trying to clean it, I really am.

you think the united states just appeared overnight?  It was a collection of loosely organized states between 1777 and 1789, much like today's EU, and the "Articles of Confederation" was the working document under which interstate commerce, etc, was regulated.  The specific issues we use for examples aside, it is telling that you do not realize which famous documents are the source of your own Union's constitution.  In fact, it was only under threat of being treated like a foreign power (tariffs and such) that Rhode Island reluctantly became the 13th state to ratify the constitution, and it only did so when its demand for a Bill of Rights was met.  And, in fact, there is no specific sanction in the constitution against leaving the Union, just as there is none in the Treaty of Maastricht against leaving.  As I have stated before, the legislature of South Carolina broke no written law when it decided to seccede, just as Germany, for example, would be breaking no written law if it decided to start printing Deutschmarks and using them.  

Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose, n'est-ce pas, mon ami?

No, I did not think that the US appeared overnight. But it has no relevance to my argument. I would say that the US is NOW a nation, the EU is not. I cannot tell you what stand I would have taken on federalism in the late 18th century, but I can tell you my stands on it now.

If I understand you right and you are actually comparing the American constitution or the documents that laid behind it with the EU constitution, that's plain insulting to the former.

On seccession, it works both ways - there is no provision for leaving the Union so the common opnion here is that is can't be done. And according to the new constitution all member states have to use the Euro, making Sweden and other countries violating the constitution by having our own currencies.

I'm not sure you and I disagree on any of this except my speculations, but we're just looking at it from different perspectives.  Nevertheless, among the thousands of documents the founders of the European Coal and Steel Union poured through in the years leading up to its founding in 1957 were the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States.  The speculative part, the answer to which will not be known till after we're long dead, is that increased centralization in Brussels may be predicted by studying increased centralization in Washington.  

They might well have done that, but the American constitution is aimed at protecting the people from the politicians, the EU one is aimed at the opposite. Plain and simple.

And I still think that there is a marked difference in the fact that we're independent nations with national identities. I don't think most American states have 1000 years of history as a homogenous nation the way many European states have.

[angus]

I don't think most American states have 1000 years of history as a homogenous nation the way many European states have.

oh, I see.  Like the Germans.  Or the italians.  

what was I thinking?

[Gustaf]

I don't think most American states have 1000 years of history as a homogenous nation the way many European states have.

oh, I see.  Like the Germans.  Or the italians.  

what was I thinking?

Did I say all European states? Nope, I said some. And even Germany and Italy has a long historical tradition, even though they only been unfied for a briefer period of time. But the argument still holds true for Scandinavia (except Finland), the UK and France, as well as for, to a lesser extent, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. But young nations, like Ireland, Finland and Germany has proven to have a taste for nationalism, wouldn't you say?

[angus]

fair enough, but then the oldest nation on earth has also shown quite a taste for nationalism.  And in any case, the Finns are a particularly strange lot, perhaps with more in common with those ancient far-easterners, in many ways, than the Germanic peoples of your region.  We're divided on the issue here.  There has always been an alternative to nationalism, and always it has been the Democrats to find the most fashionable alternative thereto and sell it to the voters.  Once it was sectionalism, then it was imperialism, now it's internationalism.  The GOP has remained steadfastly nationalistic, in my observation.

"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
 Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled."
  --Neil Peart

I believed that tripe for my first three decades or so.

[Gustaf]

fair enough, but then the oldest nation on earth has also shown quite a taste for nationalism.  And in any case, the Finns are a particularly strange lot, perhaps with more in common with those ancient far-easterners, in many ways, than the Germanic peoples of your region.  We're divided on the issue here.  There has always been an alternative to nationalism, and always it has been the Democrats to find the most fashionable alternative thereto and sell it to the voters.  Once it was sectionalism, then it was imperialism, now it's internationalism.  The GOP has remained steadfastly nationalistic, in my observation.

"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
 Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled."
  --Neil Peart

I believed that tripe for my first three decades or so.

China I suppose? I was just pointing out that not only old nations have a strong identity, newer ones can have that as well.

Finns are pretty Scandinavian, possibly more macho and tough. Comes from fighting off the Russians, sitting around in saunas and deep forests and skiing in bad weather.

I am a nationalist, and I take it that you're not then? Or what?

[Gustaf]

Note the preterite (not present) tense conjugation of the verb 'to believe' in my post.  I certainly am nationalistic!  This forms the very basis of my rationale for becoming a republican.  

China or Egypt.  Take your choice.  

I was merely commenting on the fact that the Suomi is more closely related to Magyar than to German, unlike Svenska and Norge.  And as everyone knows, the Magyar are closet-asians!

I saw the tense, though I wasn't aware that it was a conjugation, I link that with different groups of verbs in Latin...you said we differed, that's what confused me.

I do know about the language difference, being a Swede I can tell! There's also the Hungarian remnants in Transylvania, as well as the Estonians. And I suppose that you mean either Svenska and Norska or Sverige and Norge? (That's what you get for trying to be polite and smart!)

[angus]

Note the preterite (not present) tense conjugation of the verb 'to believe' in my post.  I certainly am nationalistic!  This forms the very basis of my rationale for becoming a republican.  (Though not necessarily the basis of my rationale for supporting GWB.)

China or Egypt.  Take your choice.  

I was merely commenting on the fact that the Suomi, unlike Svenska and Norge, is more closely related to Magyar than to German.  And as everyone knows, the Magyar are really closet-asians!

[angus]

yep, that's what I get for trying to be polite and smart.  I was just going back to correct all that and clean up the grammar but you were too damn fast for me.  

I need to get back to work.  Have a good night.

[Gustaf]

yep, that's what I get for trying to be polite and smart.  I was just going back to correct all that and clean up the grammar but you were too damn fast for me.  

I need to get back to work.  Have a good night.

Well, we are ahead by several hours over here, so no wonder I beat you to it.

A good night to you too, once you get there.

[dunn]

China or Egypt

No

chinese or jewish