American Politics

[Clandestine782]

You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.

Not quite. I happen to know a little more about this than you(I grew up in a town about 18 miles west of Detroit on the I-94).

What happened in Detroit was this:

1. There was a functioning city. (As far as I know, there has NEVER been an auto plant in Detroit--all the auto plants are in Woodhaven/ Wayne/ etc. I think just about every newspaper in the country uses the word "Detroit" interchangeably with "suburbs" and they are 150% wrong.)
2. It was under a white administration until about the beginning of the 1970s. At right around that time, a guy named Coleman came and took over. He was a loud mouthed MFIC/ HNIC (for white people who don't know what those mean, they translate to "motherfucker in charge" and "head nigger in charge.")
3. He single handedly ran that city into the ground.
4. He stayed there for every bit of 20 years doing just that.
5. A guy named Dennis Archer came in after Young stepped down and tried to save the city by building Casinos (which, incidentally is the same thing that they tried to do in East St. Louis, Illinois after another black administration came there and destroyed it).
6. The casinos weren't enough to save the city (the way way they weren't in East St. Louis, Illinois).
7. In comes Kwame Kilpatrick after Archer (who got convicted on some type of fraud). He stayed there for 2 terms, and there were problems with corruption from even the very first day (and those idiots elected him AGAIN).
8. Kilpatrick went to jail, got out and was given a COURTESY job by some friends in Texas (at $100,000/ annum or so) and he still didn't pay the money he owed the city of Detroit and went BACK to jail. (I really wonder what could have been the average IQ of some people in Detroit electing such a fool twice. Not only that, but if his IQ was higher than average enough to get him elected, and got sent to jail twice on the same charges, what does it say about the average intelligence of the residents of the city?)
9. Dave Bing took over the city, and they are trying to figure out just how to not get into receivership.
10. As of the time of this writing, you can buy a house in the city for less than the price of a used car.

(As an aside, I can say that I used to go there every single weekened to visit my grandmother. And the city was rough then, but it has gotten even WORSE in the years since she died and we stopped going. Even the parts of the city that functioned then don't function any more.)

I know that it is the position of many people to start sneering (like you just did) when confronted with some uncomfortable facts about certain things (such as: it seems like the fortunes of any city/ administrative region/ country dramatically decline when black people take it over), but: 1. The evidence is overwhelming; 2. Why do people get so uncomfortable when another person points out the facts? (Look what happened to James Watson when he pointed out the same thing. He was the winner of a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA but was abruptly retired after he pointed out the obvious: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php)

I am actually a black(ish) person (who does not vote) and I live in China (for the foreseeable future). I do *a lot* better in China, where I have no "political representation" (what you always hear black people in the States whining about). And the Chinese people don't like blacks (generally speaking), but I am able to find work here and make a good living. The fastest way for me to ruin that would be to go back to the States and live in Detroit (or any other place that black people have taken over and have destroyed/ are in the process of destroying). The second fastest way to ruin that would be to just bring black people to China and allow them to vote/ set up shop (like they have done in Guangzhou-- some very serious problems there).

As far as the causality of poverty: The authors of "The Bell Curve" have made a very strong case that it's race that's linked with intelligence and that causes poverty-- and not just a coincidence that many of the worst off people happen to be black. And that argument has been demonstrated time and time again.

I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.

[Member #2041]

I am not sure where you read this, but Orthodox Jews have LOTS of babies. Like, 10 per family. I just finished a book called "Real Jews" that was about the conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews. And one thing that they noted was that the Orthodox don't do anything except take welfare benefits, study Torah/ Talmud and have babies (a lot of them don't like to work or serve in the military). So, Israel will not have a problem because it doesn't haev enough Jews. It will have a problem because it doesn't have enough *productively employed* Jews.

I am not a racist. I'm just stating the facts. At no time that RSA was under the apartheid government did they have 25% of the population infected with HIV. You NEVER hear anyone else except black administrations/ black people denying the link between HIV and AIDS or saying that HIV was created by white people. Even in Africa there has been a CFA Franc (which is the same thing as the Euro-- a currency that is backed by the trade of several countres) for long time, and yet you almost can't *give* away CFA Francs in any money changing center (Hong Kong, for example). And that goes for any African currency (except the Rand) anywhere. If you go to HK (where you can buy and sell almost anything), you will find that one thing you *won't* move will be Zambian kwachas or Botswanian Pula or Nigerian Naira (etc).

I might also point out that China is in the oil producing countries in Africa drillng and setting up infrastructure, because it appears that the Africans have more oil than they do brainpower. How embarrassing is that?

Same thing with Haiti. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are both on Hispaniola, and the income in the latter is a multiple of the former. The only difference is that one side is significantly blacker than the other. Pretty strange.
The point was that people at point A can never imagine that something that happens by point B will happen. But a lot of things are possible IF they happen in many small steps instead of one extra.
That's not true. There are lot of stupid ideas that keep cropping up/ being resurrected by the intellegensia (see: "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell for excellent examples of this). See the post by Gentleman Traveler. The intellegensia doesn't have to accept Sharia. They only have to be passive/ non-judgemental and the camel can get his nose into the tent. And the rest of his body will soon follow. Saudi Arabia is not a third world country. Not all of the oil states have flat out Sharia, but many of them have something that is very much like it. Not really, in the sense that countries can and do undergo very long and dramatic declines. Look at China in the Tang Dynasty compared to China during The Great Famine. How many people at that time could have thought that Chinese would be practicing cannibalism? What resources does Haiti even have to exploit? Not sure about that one. We'll never know the alternative situation. But if you compare black administered places to non-black administered ones, just on the strength of that, you'd start asking some very uncomfortable questions. Check the facts. Take any random sample of African countries compared to ANY OTHER countries on the planet in ANY OTHER dimension(s) and see what you find. Within the United States, compare Detroit/ DC/ St. Louis/ New Orleans/ River Rouge/ Highland Park/ East St. Louis to Bloomfield Hills or Ann Arbor and see what you find. (Hint: The first 7 have black administrations and the others don't. Guess what difference you'll fiind.) Detroit is an especially instructive example: It was a functioning city BEFORE black people took it over and collapsed AFTER they did. So, the city didn't move. Only the adminstrations did. Hmmmmm.

You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.

[Westy]

More embarrassment: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/af...cI7u&wom=false

Horrific indeed. I weep for those poor, maltreated children.

But ... how does this story tie into American politics?

[Clandestine782]

More embarrassment: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/af...cI7u&wom=false

[Rubber Nursey]

How is it the the "Liberal Party" in Australia could take part in a "conservative coalition"?

LOL! I'm forever having to explain this nonsense to my American friends. Our Labor Party is (somewhat) 'liberal' and our Liberal Party is about as far from 'liberal' as you can get. Don't try to understand it. It makes no sense. You just have to do what we Australians do...ignore them completely.

[Clandestine782]

Not necessarily, there is a route to accepting Sharia law that passes through comtemporary "liberal" and "progressive" thinking - cultural relativism - the concept that western culture is not inherently superior to any other, and all are equally valid. In Canada, this is also cloaked in terms of "accommodation" and "diversity". So if an Islamic woman is cloaked in a burka on a hot August day, walking two steps behind her husband and forbidden to work or get educated, that is their right and simply a part of cultural accommodation. And we don't want to know what happens in private in that family (girls being pulled out of school, arranged marriages, female circumcision) because it might force us to deal with the issue that not all cultural values are compatible and not all practices benign.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! I thought that it was too obvious to need elaboration, but I see that it was not clear to some.

[Clandestine782]

actually, israel not so much - their main threat is demographics. they are well on their way to becoming the next south africa in the era of apartheid, as within 30-50 years, the less privileged, less educated arab population will dwarf the jewish population. if israel doesn't figure out how to let the palestinians have their own state with the full rights of an independent state, this is going to be their unavoidable future.

i am not sure where you read this, but orthodox jews have lots of babies. like, 10 per family. i just finished a book called "real jews" that was about the conflict between secular and orthodox jews. and one thing that they noted was that the orthodox don't do anything except take welfare benefits, study torah/ talmud and have babies (a lot of them don't like to work or serve in the military). so, israel will not have a problem because it doesn't haev enough jews. it will have a problem because it doesn't have enough *productively employed* jews.

frankly, i hadn't realized that i was debating with such an obvious racist.

i am not a racist. i'm just stating the facts. at no time that rsa was under the apartheid government did they have 25% of the population infected with hiv. you never hear anyone else except black administrations/ black people denying the link between hiv and aids or saying that hiv was created by white people. even in africa there has been a cfa franc (which is the same thing as the euro-- a currency that is backed by the trade of several countres) for long time, and yet you almost can't *give* away cfa francs in any money changing center (hong kong, for example). and that goes for any african currency (except the rand) anywhere. if you go to hk (where you can buy and sell almost anything), you will find that one thing you *won't* move will be zambian kwachas or botswanian pula or nigerian naira (etc).

i might also point out that china is in the oil producing countries in africa drillng and setting up infrastructure, because it appears that the africans have more oil than they do brainpower. how embarrassing is that?

same thing with haiti. haiti and the dominican republic are both on hispaniola, and the income in the latter is a multiple of the former. the only difference is that one side is significantly blacker than the other. pretty strange.

your metaphor about a black american president and sharia law is completely flawed - it was positive progress toward equality that enabled the u.s. to overcome it's prejudices and get to that point.

the point was that people at point a can never imagine that something that happens by point b will happen. but a lot of things are possible if they happen in many small steps instead of one extra.

that trend was inevitable, the only question was at what speed would it be accomplished. moving toward sharia law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move backwards, not forwards.

that's not true. there are lot of stupid ideas that keep cropping up/ being resurrected by the intellegensia (see: "intellectuals and society" by thomas sowell for excellent examples of this).

as long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, sharia can't happen.

see the post by gentleman traveler. the intellegensia doesn't have to accept sharia. they only have to be passive/ non-judgemental and the camel can get his nose into the tent. and the rest of his body will soon follow.

we'd need to become a third world country -

saudi arabia is not a third world country. not all of the oil states have flat out sharia, but many of them have something that is very much like it.

comparing our system to haiti's is laughable.

not really, in the sense that countries can and do undergo very long and dramatic declines. look at china in the tang dynasty compared to china during the great famine. how many people at that time could have thought that chinese would be practicing cannibalism?

the reason a place like haiti is as corrupt as it is has nothing to do with the color of it's goverment, it has to do with the fact that corruption is endemic to the society, and economic exploitation of the nation's resources and populace has been pervasive throughout it's history.

what resources does haiti even have to exploit?

education is the answer to solving those ills, and keeping something like sharia law at bay. obama won his election because he was clearly the more intelligent, more thoughtful candidate running. the fact that he has not solved the myriad of major problems that he inherited speaks far more to the severity of those issues that he inherited than it does to anything about his race. we are surely no worse off than had a mccain-palin ticket been charged with solving the same set of problems.

not sure about that one. we'll never know the alternative situation. but if you compare black administered places to non-black administered ones, just on the strength of that, you'd start asking some very uncomfortable questions.

that being said, i'm saddened that what had been an interesting exchange of ideas has been blighted by a raft of bigotry that i didn't see coming from your end until you unleashed it in it's full fury. arabs, muslims, and north africans are no more likely to damage a society than white folks are, when they are confronted by an equivalent amount of endemic poverty and lack of education. sharia law requires an uneducated population to proliferate. so does the level of graft in a place like haiti or somalia. it has absolutely nothing to do with race, and very little to do with religion - except in that certain religious teachings have proven to be more popular amongst the poorest and worst educated people on the planet.

check the facts. take any random sample of african countries compared to any other countries on the planet in any other dimension(s) and see what you find. within the united states, compare detroit/ dc/ st. louis/ new orleans/ river rouge/ highland park/ east st. louis to bloomfield hills or ann arbor and see what you find. (hint: the first 7 have black administrations and the others don't. guess what difference you'll fiind.) detroit is an especially instructive example: it was a functioning city before black people took it over and collapsed after they did. so, the city didn't move. only the adminstrations did. hmmmmm.

[Member #2041]

Not necessarily, there is a route to accepting Sharia law that passes through comtemporary "liberal" and "progressive" thinking - cultural relativism - the concept that western culture is not inherently superior to any other, and all are equally valid. In Canada, this is also cloaked in terms of "accommodation" and "diversity". So if an Islamic woman is cloaked in a burka on a hot August day, walking two steps behind her husband and forbidden to work or get educated, that is their right and simply a part of cultural accommodation. And we don't want to know what happens in private in that family (girls being pulled out of school, arranged marriages, female circumcision) because it might force us to deal with the issue that not all cultural values are compatible and not all practices benign.

You've still never shown a single situation in the history of the planet where a society that has educated women have adopted Sharia Law. The "route" you describe has never been traveled in human history. If you live in a civilized society and you are afraid of Sharia Law, you are also afraid of the boogeyman and any number of completely fictitious scenarios. You cannot justify oppression on the basis of something as illogical and unprecedented as the scenario you paint. We might as well be structuring our societal framework to protect us against an invasion of little green Martians. The fact is, in the U.S., the non-benign practices to which you refer are already fully legally sanctioned. We have no problem fully protecting the religious observance of Islam, without making even the slightest accommodation for the fact that some extreme fringes of Islam or other religions that might choose to oppress their women and girls. As is well understood - within our system - freedom extends until it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words - observing Islam is fully protected - but denying the girls education and mutilating them is most assuredly not protected. There is no tension whatsoever there.

[Gentleman Travel]

Moving toward Sharia Law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move BACKWARDS, not forwards. As long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, Sharia can't happen. It is only if society becomes far more repressive and far less well educated than the American society already is that Sharia can exist.

Not necessarily, there is a route to accepting Sharia law that passes through comtemporary "liberal" and "progressive" thinking - cultural relativism - the concept that western culture is not inherently superior to any other, and all are equally valid. In Canada, this is also cloaked in terms of "accommodation" and "diversity". So if an Islamic woman is cloaked in a burka on a hot August day, walking two steps behind her husband and forbidden to work or get educated, that is their right and simply a part of cultural accommodation. And we don't want to know what happens in private in that family (girls being pulled out of school, arranged marriages, female circumcision) because it might force us to deal with the issue that not all cultural values are compatible and not all practices benign.

[Australiasucks]

Clandestine, you must be smoking some potent stuff, Britain is not doing fine, and neither is Israel. The US is largely in the biggest economic debacle since the 1930s, the politicians were saying the worst is behind America but its obvious the crisis never ended and was merely masked by the massive amount of bailout stimulus. The patient was hemorrhaging due to a gunshot wound, the Wall Street created financial crisis, and Dr. Obama administered more blood to the US economy without stopping the hemorrhaging, hence the US is on a spending spree that is the equivalent of a poker game. Obama betting the house that the US will recover, looks like he is going to lose the house. Britain is on the verge of being thrown out of the EU, while you think this may weaken the EU it will actually make Europe stronger. I was born British myself and keep up with events there. I currently live in Australia and would never dream of returning there.

On the Israel front, things seem to be getting worse for Israel, they put themselves in a big hole, they have no friends any more, and Iran is going nuclear. Not a good sign for them.

[Member #2041]

britain is doing just fine. israel is doing just fine.

actually, israel not so much - their main threat is demographics. they are well on their way to becoming the next south africa in the era of apartheid, as within 30-50 years, the less privileged, less educated arab population will dwarf the jewish population. if israel doesn't figure out how to let the palestinians have their own state with the full rights of an independent state, this is going to be their unavoidable future.

never say never. did anyone 100 years ago imagine that a black person could become president? one did. does anyone now imagine that the united states could end up looking like haiti (enough black administrations will do that to almost any country-- short of a nuclear device, they are the best way to destroy almost anything productive). it could. well, systems don't exist in a vacuum. they exist because people propagate them. and if you have enough arabs/ muslims/ north africans in one place, then that is exactly what could happen.

frankly, i hadn't realized that i was debating with such an obvious racist. your metaphor about a black american president and sharia law is completely flawed - it was positive progress toward equality that enabled the u.s. to overcome it's prejudices and get to that point. that trend was inevitable, the only question was at what speed would it be accomplished. moving toward sharia law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move backwards, not forwards. as long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, sharia can't happen. it is only if society becomes far more repressive and far less well educated than the american society already is that sharia can exist. admittedly, or education system has regressed somewhat in the past generation - but for it to continue to regress to the stage that anyone could seriously believe that sharia law was an actual threat, well our nation would have to have long since devolved past the point of anyone caring whether or not the u.s. system of government would be worth saving - we'd need to become a third world country - which, clearly is a long way off even for those of us who believe our nation may actually now be in decline. comparing our system to haiti's is laughable. the reason a place like haiti is as corrupt as it is has nothing to do with the color of it's goverment, it has to do with the fact that corruption is endemic to the society, and economic exploitation of the nation's resources and populace has been pervasive throughout it's history. education is the answer to solving those ills, and keeping something like sharia law at bay. obama won his election because he was clearly the more intelligent, more thoughtful candidate running. the fact that he has not solved the myriad of major problems that he inherited speaks far more to the severity of those issues that he inherited than it does to anything about his race. we are surely no worse off than had a mccain-palin ticket been charged with solving the same set of problems.

that being said, i'm saddened that what had been an interesting exchange of ideas has been blighted by a raft of bigotry that i didn't see coming from your end until you unleashed it in it's full fury. arabs, muslims, and north africans are no more likely to damage a society than white folks are, when they are confronted by an equivalent amount of endemic poverty and lack of education. sharia law requires an uneducated population to proliferate. so does the level of graft in a place like haiti or somalia. it has absolutely nothing to do with race, and very little to do with religion - except in that certain religious teachings have proven to be more popular amongst the poorest and worst educated people on the planet.

[Gentleman Travel]

1) We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the relevance of Margaret Thatcher's opinion of Liberals. My opinion of the Religious Right brand of "Conservatives" is even less flattering (as opposed to the Libertarian small government strain of Conservatism)...

MY GOD! A high level debate, using facts, philosophy and coherent arguments on "American Politics"! Will wonders never cease?

Jackson, you must stop this immediately before reasoned discourse takes over the whole Board!!

[Clandestine782]

2) I wasn't referring to what the French Revolution became - I was referring only to the underlying ideas that inspired it at it's genesis - those of Locke and Rousseau. I will grant you that the French Revolution rapidly became something far less pure than the initial ideology that spawned it.

And this is a perfect example of how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The outcome of the French Revolution is an actual result (it doesn't matter how good the principles behind it were, or if they were the same principles as for the American Revolution).

3) The only GENUINE ideology that these folks ever had, irrespective of what they may have claimed - was the Gordon Gecko credo that "Greed is Good".

Greed seems to be a bad human emotion, but the fact is that it gets things done. If you had to appeal to someone's moral compass/ better side to get something done as opposed to their self interest, which do you think would get you a faster result? I teach Chemistry and deal with a moist, pulsating asshole of a manager. Maybe you could tell me that if I am managed by that guy, then some other guy doesn't have to deal with him-- and that would be appealing to my better nature. But, sorry, if you gave me that (and then made my paycheck zero), then I'm afraid that I would have to find something else to do. When I moonlight as a conversation teacher here (talking about the same shit OVER AND OVER with students who have been studying for 7 or 8 years and can't make a decent conversation), do you think I do that for my health?

4) But I also feel that it's very clear that ABSOLUTE respect for the rights of citizenry is the very underpinning of our system. If you can compromise on that whenever the "real world" impedes - then the American system has no legitimate justification to exist.

Well, principles must conform to the real world but the reverse is not true. So, not trying to consider the American system (whatever that may mean) without respect to what it entails in the real world is the first step to Perdition. If it just about economic development (and that is good enough for me--- I don't care about the right to speak my mind because I don't have it in China and am none the worse off for it), then there are systems that have a lot less respect for the rights of their citizenry (i.e., Singapore) and are just as rich.

5) Good that you live in China - their methodology is probably more to your liking. I do feel that it's unfortunate that the American ideals and principles seem to be being abandoned from within, so we will never actually see which one would triumph on the World Stage in the long term - as it appears clear that we will adopt their entirely pragmatic approach fairly soon. Fortunately for me, as someone in his 50s, I won't live to see this played out to completion.

There are some very serious problems the way China does things. But the thing that I most appreciate is that they do things with the minimum amount of talking. I can't stand the current President of the United States because he does SO MUCH talking with so little carefully-thought-out action. The PRC government is the direct opposite. They are very opaque, but they do take care of business (in SOME respects).

7) The fact is, Sharia would not and could not ever be implemented in a society where women have rights as individuals and educational opportunities.

Never say never. Did anyone 100 years ago imagine that a black person could become president? One did. Does anyone now imagine that the United States could end up looking like Haiti (enough black administrations will do that to almost any country-- short of a nuclear device, they are the best way to destroy almost anything productive). It could.

It only exists where women are treated as chattel. If you really fear Sharia could actually take hold in America, then it is patently obvious that you don't believe in the bedrock principles of the American System.

Well, systems don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because people propagate them. And if you have enough Arabs/ Muslims/ North Africans in one place, then that is EXACTLY what could happen.

If you really believe that Islam is so dangerous to the American way of life -

I leave you to read the writings on Frank Gaffney. This is not a big bang sort of thing. This is step by step. The camel is trying to get his nose in the tent.

then I will simply say that you need to own up to your own belief that there is nothing special about the American system of government, and we might as well abandon it and surrender in advance to the Chinese.

I wouldn't go as far as all that. But even if the Chinese have been stuck in the Qin Dynasty for the last 2,300 years.....at least they won't let themselves be changed. At least they won't let someone come to China and try to extend their own country into it.
.

As for your last point about the "benefits" of not having a written Constitution. I would call that a fundamental flaw, and not a benefit.

Britain is doing just fine. Israel is doing just fine.

Because it's far too easy to abandon bedrock principles when there is short term gain. But in those societies, the principles in questio are NOT really bedrock, are they? I might say that the single salient distinguishing feature of the American system of government is the Bill of Rights. Without it, we would never have come to prominence as a world power, because we never would have attracted the waves of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers who migrated to this nation because of the clarion call of that document.

Two separate issues...........A favorable business environment and a Bill of Rights/ Constitution are two very different things. Singapore is swimming in money, and laws there are very much on the side of the government (compare that to Malaysia, which is a bit more laid back but less rich). China is even WORSE. But (these days at least), they are having no problems attracting investment.

[Westy]

Yes, CBS. Ten questions, ten letter grades, A-B-C-D-F.

Even better, they're sharing the results in real time. When you submit your poll, a window opens up showing bar-graphs of readers' response.

They are, of course, very clear that "this is not a scientific poll." I can't blame them for that. Because as of the moment I submitted my grades, the results were NOT pretty for the President.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...03544.html?tag

[Member #2041]

That was a nice response. At least you bothered to answer the questions one by one and not turn this into personal attacks (this happens all the time on this forum).

1. As for Magaret Thatcher: She was the person who presided over a prosperous period in the United Kingdom (because Britain was looking very rough for a time). I've also read her books (that quote is from "Statecraft") and find that she is very intelligent (she was a Ph.D. in Chemistry), so when she talked about social issues, she did it with great perspective and insight.

2. Ok, if you look into the French Revolution, you will find that even if Locke did have something to say that inspired some aspect of the French Revolution, you can know that the ideas behind that revolution were VERY DIFFERENT to the ones behind the American Revolution. (How many republics has France been through since then? And did you read anything about the Reign of Terror in France that happened shortly after the French Revolution?) In sum, the French Revolution was a very different thing to the American one-- even if they happen to both be related by the fact that they were revolutions.

3. Ok, so the bankers were conservatives (where have you read this, by the way? Can you point to a single metric that describes/ quantifies the degree of conservatism by the bankers)? And in any case, you could turn that argument on its head. One of the biggest scams in the United States is the university system (at all levels). Now, universities are well to the left of the general population, and they produce a very little bit of economic value-- relative to what they suck up. (Do a google of "Courtney Munna nytimes.com" and you will get the story of a girl who spent $100,000 on an undergraduate education that she will be paying off for the rest of her life.) But can you say that what universities did (and do) is right because of their political persuasion? Even though universities and banks are EQUALLY GUILTY of moral hazard (i.e., not worrying about what someone else has to pay for and in what quantity).

I don't think this is an issue of political preference (again). If government policy (over some number of years and some number of administrations) allowed banks to become "too big too fail," then *that* is what created the conditions for banks to make reckless decisions. It's likely that you didn't look up the currency board countries (or the concept), but one of the central features of an Orthodox currency board is that it does not get into setting the discount interest rates (1) and that it does not act as a lender of last resort (2). I think if someone had thought to not let banks large enough to be too big to fail, then this might not have happened. Zombie banks have happened before (Japan. China.) The US could have seen this coming. And this was a policy issue.

4. Then this is where we disagree. Principles in the abstract are fine. But we exist in the real world. So, what I see as a cost benefit issue (that letting 10 guilty people go free really is more costly than imprisoning one innocent person) is a moral issue to you. And because of that, we'll never be able to come to an agreement on this.

5. I live here in China now, and find that they are (in some respects) no nonsense. When those people killed children, there was no reason for some lawyer to drag that out for 15 years. Getting executed in a timely fashion was better for everyone (including those people who might not have had time for a day in court because judges were busy listening to lawywers stretch out said cases to said amount of time) because the cost of that one life was worth the safety of many others.

6. I think you want to look into that case a bit more carefully. I believe that that was ruling on the constitutionality of a law that was in Georgia. The Supreme Court is an appellate court, and they don't worry about writing the laws. They just deal with the issue of whether a state can constitutionally pass a law (even if they don't agree with it). This is the difference between Strict Constructionism and Living Constitution theorists.

7. That is not true (that Sharia would not be implemented in free societies), and this is because Sharia was chosen by the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) and Afghanistan (Taliban) with no outside pressure. (They are both Wahabbis.) I know that Nigeria has had some trouble with various localities wanting to ignore the secular law and institute Sharia in its place. Ditto for Yemen and Somalia.

I think the issue we have (about how far to let Muslims take over the United States) is not one that we can solve. I am looking at this in a real life way (i.e., something that HAS happened and CAN happen again and SHOULD be avoided if at all possible). You are looking at this as an abstract principle that exists in some reality somewhere. On this earth: (1) Muslims are not fond of the West; (2) The problem of some people coming someplace and starting out as guests and then taking over has happened before. (Think of China in either Tibet or Xinjiang. Those people were independent nations at one time and then they got in bed with China and lost ALL of their territory. Mongolia did a little better and lost half of theirs. Russia in in the process of losing its border states. If you google "Russia china revanchism," you will find articles that talk about just that.)

So, dealing with things that exist on THIS Earth, you can see that gate-crashers happen all the time. And once you know that, it is the problem of the practical issue of preventing that. (That was the point of Switzerland's not allowing minarets.)

We could talk about the benefits of NOT having a constitution written down (like Britain and Israel), but that's getting too deep.

1) We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the relevance of Margaret Thatcher's opinion of Liberals. My opinion of the Religious Right brand of "Conservatives" is even less flattering (as opposed to the Libertarian small government strain of Conservatism). But in each case, these are simply individual's opinions - and after all, opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

2) I wasn't referring to what the French Revolution became - I was referring only to the underlying ideas that inspired it at it's genesis - those of Locke and Rousseau. I will grant you that the French Revolution rapidly became something far less pure than the initial ideology that spawned it.

3) I didn't say that the bankers WERE actual Conservatives - I said that they self-identified as such. Obviously, when push came to shove, they all simply wanted the losses caused by their own bad business decisions to be covered by the Government - and thus in their actions, they were hypocrites who threw their Conservative principles over the side in a New York minute. The only GENUINE ideology that these folks ever had, irrespective of what they may have claimed - was the Gordon Gecko credo that "Greed is Good".

4) I agree that we won't agree. But I also feel that it's very clear that ABSOLUTE respect for the rights of citizenry is the very underpinning of our system. If you can compromise on that whenever the "real world" impedes - then the American system has no legitimate justification to exist.

5) Good that you live in China - their methodology is probably more to your liking. I do feel that it's unfortunate that the American ideals and principles seem to be being abandoned from within, so we will never actually see which one would triumph on the World Stage in the long term - as it appears clear that we will adopt their entirely pragmatic approach fairly soon. Fortunately for me, as someone in his 50s, I won't live to see this played out to completion.

6) Actually, the opinions of the most staunch Conservatives on the SCOTUS are clear. They believe that States have the right to regulate private sexual behavior between consenting adults. They do not find any right to Privacy from intrusive government exists - which is exactly the opposite of how they view governmental intervention in economic interaction between consenting business entities. This is one of the main compromises that Conservatism has made to it's ideology in order to build a political coalition which incorporates Evangelical religious zealots into their numbers. The Libertarian flavor of Conservatism, while highly principled, has never by itself been able to get majority support without the Religious folks who want to legislate morality.

7) The fact is, Sharia would not and could not ever be implemented in a society where women have rights as individuals and educational opportunities. It only exists where women are treated as chattel. If you really fear Sharia could actually take hold in America, then it is patently obvious that you don't believe in the bedrock principles of the American System. None of the nations where Sharia law has ever taken hold were Democracies, and only one - Iran, had an educated population at the time, and it was clear that Iran is a special case because of the Anti-American hatred that the Shah inspired put a taint on any of the principles that America was linked with. And even so, they appear to be on their way to overthrowing Sharia law as a bad experiment that has harmed them as a nation. In any case, it couldn't be more clear that Islam is every bit as legally protected a religion as any other under the American system. There simply is no "exception" to be made for Islam, if we believe that there is anything in the American system that's worth preserving. If you really believe that Islam is so dangerous to the American way of life - then I will simply say that you need to own up to your own belief that there is nothing special about the American system of government, and we might as well abandon it and surrender in advance to the Chinese. To me, the far greater threat comes from people willing to abandon our principles due to irrational fear over stuff like Sharia Law. That's like saying that the last few centuries of human development have been counterproductive, and the middle ages is going to triumph over progress.

As for your last point about the "benefits" of not having a written Constitution. I would call that a fundamental flaw, and not a benefit. Because it's far too easy to abandon bedrock principles when there is short term gain. But in those societies, the principles in questio are NOT really bedrock, are they? I might say that the single salient distinguishing feature of the American system of government is the Bill of Rights. Without it, we would never have come to prominence as a world power, because we never would have attracted the waves of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers who migrated to this nation because of the clarion call of that document.